get_block_height

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that a backend is required and that the network parameter overrides the server's network for this call only. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the only parameter is explained in one line. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context. 'Needs a backend' signals a real prerequisite, though it is slightly vague about what happens if no backend is available. Overall, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'network' parameter. It does so by stating 'Override the server's network for this call', which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw string/null schema. It does not enumerate accepted network values, but for a single optional parameter this is adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current chain tip height'), making the tool's core purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block, which retrieves a specific block, and other chain data tools. The wording is direct and not a tautology.

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 the tool is used when the current chain tip height is needed, and it notes a prerequisite ('Needs a backend'). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_block, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is mostly inferred from the purpose rather than clearly prescribed.

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