radiant_get_block_header

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 only states the core function and does not explain what happens on invalid heights, whether it is a read-only operation (implicit), or any error handling. A simple getter is implied, but nontrivial behavior like missing headers or network errors is unaddressed.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. For a simple tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lean. It does not mention return format, edge cases, or any additional behavior. Compared to more complex tools, this may suffice, but it lacks the depth that would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the height parameter is fully described in the schema. The description reiterates 'by block height', adding no new information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 applies since 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 (get), the resource (block header), and the input (block height). It is distinct from siblings like radiant_get_chain_info and radiant_get_transaction, which target different data. This makes the purpose unambiguous and aids selection.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Agents are left to infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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