inscription_child_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (get info, retrieve metadata) which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, prerequisites, or what happens if the child doesn't exist. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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 and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by incorporating parameter hints, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with two specific parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a 'child', how child_index works, or what the return data looks like. More context is needed for correct usage.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for parameters beyond their names. It does not explain that 'child_index' refers to the index of the child within the parent inscription or that 'inscription_id' identifies the parent. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 gets information about a specific child inscription, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource 'child of a Bitcoin Ordinals inscription'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ordinals_inscription_get' by focusing on nested/child inscriptions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to retrieve metadata about nested or child inscriptions', providing clear context for when to use. It doesn't include exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's specific purpose.

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