icp_canister_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not explicitly disclose safety, authentication needs, side effects, or what the response contains beyond 'URLs'. This lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise—one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, though the vague 'useful information' weakens the content. Still, no words are wasted, earning a high score 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It mentions 'URLs' but not other included data, leaving significant ambiguity about what 'useful information' entails. For a simple tool this is still incomplete, as agents cannot predict the full response shape.

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 already documents the single parameter canister_id as 'The canister Principal ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it operates on a canister, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 'Get useful information about a canister including its URLs' specifies a verb and resource but is vague about what information is provided. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like icp_get_canister_status or get_canister_interface, so it falls short of a specific, differentiating purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning suitable contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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