getBeaconStateCommittees

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'gets' data (read operation) but provides no details on side effects, rate limits, or potential performance impact. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place, achieving maximal conciseness.

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 description assumes significant domain knowledge about beacon committees and the Ethereum beacon chain. It does not explain the output format (e.g., list of committee assignments) or the meaning of parameters like 'stateId'. Without an output schema, the agent gets insufficient context to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100% with already informative parameter descriptions. The description adds context by mentioning epoch/slot filtering but does not cover all parameters (e.g., network, index). It provides moderate additional value.

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 it gets beacon committee assignments for a given state, with optional epoch/slot filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getBeaconBlock or getBeaconValidators by specifying committees. However, it omits mention of indexing filtering.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., getBeaconStateValidators, getBeaconStateSyncCommittees). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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