get_mining_phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return values (phase and marathon day) and the underlying schedule, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential error conditions or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks richer behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It explains not only what the tool returns but also the context of the mining phases, all without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a simple no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the two pieces of information returned (mining phase and XMR marathon day) and provides the background needed to interpret them, satisfying the needs of an AI agent.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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: 'Get the current Qubic mining phase (MINING or IDLE) and whether it's an XMR marathon day.' This is a specific verb+resource (get phase and flag), and the additional context about alternating phases distinguishes it from any sibling tool.

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 the tool (whenever mining phase or marathon day status is needed) and explains the network's periodic behavior, making the usage obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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