get-block-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. 'Get block information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Get block information'. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of blockchain tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'block information' includes (e.g., transactions, timestamps), how results are formatted, or error conditions. For a tool in this context with rich sibling tools, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters ('height' and 'networkName'), including defaults and prerequisites. The description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get block information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('block information'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-account-info' or 'query-network' beyond the resource type. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. While the input schema hints at usage by requiring 'networkName' and referencing the 'networks' resource, the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations. This leaves the agent to infer usage from schema details alone.

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