check_mint_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It says 'check,' implying read-only, but does not confirm lack of side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the OAuth token parameter.

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?

A single sentence, no fluff, no unnecessary details. Every word is useful and conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, or scope (e.g., does it check a specific config or all?). A check tool should hint at what is returned (e.g., status indicators).

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 100% for the single parameter 'accessToken,' which is already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states it checks 'configured Sui package, treasury cap, and shared mint config objects,' specifying the verb and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_user_mint_status' by focusing on system-level objects rather than user-specific status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_user_mint_status' or 'health.' The description only states what it does without context on prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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