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, and open-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact performance metrics returned (e.g., vote success rate, delinquency status), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and lists all returned metrics without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place by clearly defining the tool's scope and output, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and clear purpose, the description is largely complete. It specifies the metrics returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning the response format or any constraints, though not strictly necessary.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and focuses on the tool's purpose and output metrics, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('Blueprint validator performance'), listing the exact metrics returned (vote success rate, uptime, skip rate, epoch credits, delinquency status). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_validator_info' or 'get_staking_summary' by focusing on performance metrics rather than general info or staking data.

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 validator performance metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_validator_info' or 'get_staking_summary'. It provides context about what data is returned, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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