get_epoch_computors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds useful context about the meaning and size of the computor set. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable. The description effectively communicates the default epoch behavior, which is the key non-obvious trait.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence adds valuable context without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose. The description fully covers the domain context (what computors are, their count and role) and the default behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No additional information is needed.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'epoch', including its description 'Epoch number (defaults to current epoch)'. The tool description repeats this default behavior but adds no further parameter-level detail. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function clearly: 'List the computor identities for a given epoch.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('computor identities'), and adds context by explaining that computors are the 676 nodes that validate transactions on the Qubic network. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention computors.

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 usage context by explaining the default behavior ('Defaults to the current epoch if none is specified') and the role of computors. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a unique getter tool, the context is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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