get_amendment_status

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 a read operation, specifies the data source (on-ledger singleton), notes it requires no admin node, and quantifies the call as 1 RPC call. This is good transparency for a read-only operation, though rate limits or potential errors are not mentioned.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and nature. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, meeting the highest standard for conciseness.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema (present but not shown), the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned, the data source, and the cost (1 RPC). It lacks details on error cases or edge conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The single parameter 'network' (with enum and default) is not described in the text, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the enum values. While the parameter is simple, the description misses an opportunity to clarify its role, resulting in lower effectiveness.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving live amendment status for the network, detailing what is included (enabled amendments with human names, voting set with >80%). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'predict_amendment_activation' or 'check_amendment_blocked', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool over alternatives.

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?

Indicates that it reads the on-ledger Amendments singleton without requiring an admin node, which implies it's a simple read operation. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'predict_amendment_activation' or 'diff_node_amendments', limiting its decisiveness for tool selection.

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