iota_epoch_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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or return format. For a zero-parameter getter this is minimally acceptable but lacks proactive disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, 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?

The description names the informational outputs (epoch, checkpoint, network stats) which is sufficient for such a simple read-only tool with zero parameters. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the tool's scope, though it does not detail the exact structure or any caveats.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Base baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is unnecessary here.

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' with clear resources: 'current epoch, checkpoint, and network stats'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like price, wallet, and object tools.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this when needing current network state. However, no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual guidance are provided, so it only meets the 'implied usage' criterion.

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