radiant_get_chain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden; 'Get current ... status' clearly signals a read-only operation with no parameters. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify state' or describe error behavior, but for a status query this is adequate 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?

Single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource before enumerating the returned fields. No wasted words or repetition of structured data.

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 is simple (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), and the description lists the key return values. It could be more explicit about the shape of 'network parameters' or response format, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current Radiant blockchain status'), and the exact return contents (latest block height, tip hash, network parameters). It is easily distinguished from siblings like radiant_get_block_header (specific header vs current tip) and radiant_connection_health (node connectivity vs chain state).

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied by the word 'current' and by the unique return fields. It does not state exclusions such as 'for a specific block use get_block_header' or 'for node health use connection_health.'

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