albyhub_get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dependent endpoint and warns about version-specific path differences. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies it) or mention any potential side effects, but for a simple info getter this is adequate.

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: the first states the core action and result, the second provides fallback guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless convenience wrapper, this is complete. It describes the endpoint, what info is fetched, and handles version discrepancies. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key fields (identity, network, version) so the agent knows what to expect.

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 schema already fully documents that. The description adds context by indicating what data is returned (identity, network, version), which is useful even without parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets it.

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 fetches Alby Hub node info (identity, network, version) via GET /api/info. It distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling it a convenience wrapper, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for node info and provides a concrete fallback: if a 404 occurs, use albyhub_proxy_request to probe alternative endpoints. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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