evernode_host_diagnostics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and explicitly warns that it performs ~9 serial RPC reads, making it slow but thorough. This exceeds typical transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph of moderate length, front-loading the purpose. It is dense but not verbose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the checks performed, read-only nature, and performance characteristics. No gaps are apparent for the intended troubleshooting use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has two parameters, but only 'address' has a description ('host r-address'). Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds no additional parameter details beyond what is in the schema, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description for 'network'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as a 'one-call health check for an Evernode host' and enumerates specific checks (registration, heartbeat, instance load, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools which focus on accounts, hooks, transactions, or other features.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for host troubleshooting and mentions read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Among siblings, it is uniquely positioned for host diagnostics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.