nonce_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources (local nonce tracker at ~/.aibtc/nonce-state.json and Hiro API), the comparison performed, and a detailed breakdown of return fields (local, chain, healthy, issues). This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention any prerequisites like wallet unlock status or rate limits.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, bulleted diagnostic scenarios, and a clear return breakdown. The final 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is tangential and slightly reduces conciseness, but overall the information is efficiently presented.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides thorough context: what it does, when to use it, data sources, and a detailed return field breakdown. It compensates well for the missing output schema, though it could mention wallet state prerequisites for full 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 single parameter 'address' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its default to the active wallet. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely implying that the active wallet is the default context. 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('sender nonce health for the active wallet'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this diagnostic tool from sibling repair tools like nonce_heal or nonce_fill_gap, leaving a small gap in sibling 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 explicitly says 'Use this to diagnose:' followed by four concrete scenarios (nonce conflicts, stuck queues, gaps, stale state). It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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