Solentic

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed-world assumption. The description adds useful context about the infrastructure details returned (e.g., 'Two bare-metal servers (active + hot standby)'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key output details without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value by specifying what is retrieved.

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 (a read operation with no parameters) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is returned but doesn't cover the output format, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. With no output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful for 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output content. This meets the baseline for tools with no 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: retrieving infrastructure specifications for a 'Blueprint validator', listing specific components like server hardware, redundancy, network, and storage. It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on infrastructure rather than staking or transactions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_validator_info' or 'get_performance_metrics' which might overlap in scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_validator_info' or 'get_performance_metrics' that might provide related data. The context is implied but not explicit.

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