iota_epoch_info

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 the action ('Get') and method ('via GraphQL'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, data structure). For a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get current epoch, checkpoint, and network statistics') and includes the method ('via GraphQL') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly 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 the tool's complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and method but doesn't provide details on output format or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data beyond the schema, it meets the minimum viable threshold but could 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 identifies the resources ('current epoch, checkpoint, and network statistics') and method ('via GraphQL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on network statistics rather than wallet operations or transaction handling, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'iota_cli' or 'iota_object'.

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, context for retrieving network statistics, or differentiate it from other tools that might provide overlapping data, such as 'iota_cli' or 'iota_wallet_switch_network'. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly defined.

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