ton_get_network_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get,' implying a non-mutating read, but it does not mention rate limits, network call behavior, caching, or any preconditions. For a simple getter this may be minimally acceptable, but no extra behavioral context is provided.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler words. It earns its place entirely.

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?

This is a low-complexity getter with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient for an agent to understand the basic action, but it lacks details about return values and the testnet behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is a clear gap.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'testnet' boolean parameter, with a clear description 'Use testnet instead of mainnet.' The tool description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current TON network information,' which clearly distinguishes it from other TON tools like ton_get_balance and ton_get_transaction_history. However, it does not enumerate what fields 'network information' includes, so it stops short of being fully specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as choosing mainnet vs testnet or why this is preferable to other chain-info tools. The description merely states the action without providing usage context or exclusions.

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