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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that strategies can be started later, hinting at a multi-step process, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful context note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values. This is the minimum viable for a creation tool, but gaps remain in transparency and completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Create a new auto-mining strategy') and the resources involved ('with a name and mining parameters'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_strategies' or 'start_strategy' beyond mentioning that strategies can be started later, which is helpful but not a full differentiation.

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 by stating 'Strategies can be started later with start_strategy,' which suggests a workflow context, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_mining' or 'list_strategies.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, or behavioral traits like rate limits or error conditions. The description adds some context about the tool's role in workflow sequencing, but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key outputs, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning the return format or any authentication requirements to be fully comprehensive.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('refinORE account info'), explicitly listing what information is retrieved ('Solana wallet address and deposit instructions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on account metadata rather than balances, strategies, or mining operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover your wallet.' This tells the agent when to use it (as an initial step) and implies it should be prioritized over other tools for wallet discovery, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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

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 states the tool retrieves balances but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with wallet data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, tokens, target) without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only status, error cases) and does not explain return values or structure, which is critical for a tool that fetches multiple token balances. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying it's for a 'Solana wallet address', but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('wallet token balances'), specifying the exact tokens included (SOL, ORE, USDC, stORE, SKR) and the target (Solana wallet address). It distinguishes from siblings like get_account_info or get_staking_info by focusing specifically on token balances rather than general account data or staking details.

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 when token balances for a Solana wallet are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_info (which might include broader account data) or get_staking_info (which might focus on staked tokens). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), it returns specific mining round metrics, and it explicitly states 'This is a public endpoint (no auth required)', which is crucial information about authentication requirements that isn't available elsewhere.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and enumerates returned data points, the second provides critical behavioral context about authentication. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly explains what information is returned and the authentication context. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what information the tool provides about the current mining round.

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 states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('current mining round info'), then enumerates the exact data points returned (round number, time remaining, total deployed, motherlode, expected value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mining_history or get_mining_session by focusing on current round status rather than historical data or active sessions.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Get the current mining round info') and explicitly states it's a public endpoint with no auth required. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related information, such as get_mining_history for past data or get_mining_session for active session details.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('array of completed mining rounds with results and earnings'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two clear sentences that state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on authentication, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like typical usage patterns or constraints.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('past mining rounds history'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_round' by focusing on historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_mining_session' or 'get_rewards', which might also involve mining-related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active mining account, or compare it to siblings like 'get_current_round' for real-time data or 'get_rewards' for earnings details, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if no active session exists), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the status of your current active mining session') and adds useful detail ('including stats and current round info'). There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 (simple read operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, errors, or output structure. This meets the bare minimum for a read tool but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the status of your current active mining session, including stats and current round info.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('current active mining session'), and scope ('stats and current round info'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_current_round' or 'get_mining_history', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active mining session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_current_round' or 'get_mining_history'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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 mentions the types of rewards included but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific details about reward types. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about rewards. It lists reward types but doesn't explain the return format, potential errors, or other contextual details needed for an AI agent to use it effectively. The complexity of handling wallet rewards warrants more comprehensive guidance.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'unclaimed rewards for a wallet', specifying the types of rewards included (unclaimed SOL, unrefined ORE, bonus ORE). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balances or get_account_info by focusing specifically on rewards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balances or get_account_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid wallet addresses. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that queries financial data.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and specific data points retrieved. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of financial staking data and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists what information is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, data structure, units, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much ambiguity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable coverage.

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 states the action ('Get staking information') and resource ('for a wallet'), with specific details about what information is retrieved (stORE balance, current APR, and pending staking rewards). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_account_info', which might provide overlapping information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_account_info' that might serve similar purposes in this staking context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a listing operation for saved strategies, which implies read-only behavior, but does not mention potential limitations like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. It adds basic context about what strategies are but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and add only essential clarifying information about what strategies are. Every sentence earns its place without waste or redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and context of strategies, but for a listing tool, it could benefit from mentioning output format or any behavioral constraints to be more 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than redundant parameter information.

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 states the specific action ('List all') and resource ('saved auto-mining strategies'), with additional context about what strategies are ('define reusable mining configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_strategy' or 'create_strategy' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution or creation.

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 when needing to view saved strategies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mining_history' or 'get_mining_session'. It provides clear context for listing configurations but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deployment of tokens but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether this is a write operation (likely, given 'Start'), potential costs or irreversible actions, rate limits, authentication needs beyond the wallet address, or what happens after starting (e.g., session duration, error handling). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists configurable parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points or clearer grouping), but it remains efficient with zero waste.

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 complexity of a mining tool (likely involving financial transactions and session management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., costs, reversibility), usage guidelines, and details on what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, confirmation). For a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this description does not provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the parameters ('Configure amount, number of squares, token, risk tolerance, and tile selection strategy') but provides no additional meaning, syntax, or usage context. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific action ('Start a new ORE mining session'), the target resource ('on refinORE'), and the deployment details ('Deploys SOL/USDC/ORE across squares on the mining grid'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'start_strategy' or 'stop_mining' by focusing on initiating a mining operation rather than strategy management or session termination.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_strategy' or 'create_strategy', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a funded wallet) or exclusions. It lists configuration parameters but offers no context for choosing between them or when mining is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions launching an auto-mining session, which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if mining is already running, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place by clarifying the purpose and scope. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (a mutation operation to start mining), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover important aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status), error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 100% (the single parameter 'strategy_id' is fully described in the schema as 'ID of the strategy to start'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, merely restating that it uses 'the strategy's predefined parameters' without detailing them.

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 states the action ('Start mining') and resource ('using a saved strategy'), specifying it launches an auto-mining session with predefined parameters. It distinguishes from generic 'start_mining' by focusing on saved strategies, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'create_strategy' beyond the 'start' vs 'create' verb distinction.

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 when you have a saved strategy and want to initiate mining with its parameters, suggesting context over alternatives like 'start_mining' (which might not use saved strategies). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'start_mining' or prerequisites (e.g., strategy must exist), leaving some ambiguity.

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

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 mentions the tool stops a session but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., loss of progress), or error conditions (e.g., if no session exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence efficiently to clarify parameter usage. Both sentences earn their place with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a destructive operation (stopping a session) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'session_id' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the optionality and default behavior ('stops active session if omitted'), but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema specifies.

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 states the specific action ('Stop') and resource ('an active ORE mining session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'start_mining' or 'get_mining_session'. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context for usage ('Optionally specify a session ID, or stop the current active session'), indicating when to use parameters vs. default behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like needing an active session).

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