rustchain_epoch

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 describes what data is returned and provides context about epochs (600-second intervals, miners earn rewards), which adds useful behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose operational traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details and contextual explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0 parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and provides epoch context. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any dependencies or typical use cases, though the output schema likely covers return values.

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 does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, and adds value by explaining the return data and epoch context, compensating for the lack of parameter info.

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 'current RustChain epoch information', specifying it returns epoch number, slot, enrolled miners count, epoch reward pot, and blocks per epoch. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rustchain_balance or rustchain_stats by focusing specifically on epoch data, not general statistics or balances.

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 context by explaining that epochs are 600-second intervals where miners earn rewards, suggesting this tool is for monitoring epoch-based metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like rustchain_stats or rustchain_miners, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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