Solentic

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable context about the typical epoch duration (~2-3 days) and the practical use case for stake timing, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose and output, while the second adds practical context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains what data is returned and why it's useful. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the exact format of the returned timing data (e.g., time units, percentage precision).

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 appropriately focuses on the tool's output semantics (what data it returns) rather than inputs, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current Solana epoch timing'), listing the exact data returned (progress percentage, slots remaining, estimated epoch end time). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on epoch timing rather than balances, transactions, or other staking operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding when stake activations/deactivations take effect'), including a timeframe reference (~2-3 days per epoch). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools for related but different purposes.

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