Get Infrastructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact infrastructure details returned (two bare-metal servers, active+hot standby), which goes beyond the annotation data and gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing supporting details. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what the tool returns (infrastructure specs including server details). For a simple, parameterless read operation, this is adequate. Minor omission: does not clarify if the output is structured or free-form text, but not critical.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no need to elaborate on parameters. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, and the description does not detract from that.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'Blueprint validator infrastructure specs.' It lists components (server hardware, redundancy, network, storage) and mentions two bare-metal servers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_validator_info' or 'get_epoch_timing' which focus on other aspects.

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 for retrieving infrastructure specs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description alone.

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