get_mint_info

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

The description transparently frames the tool as a read-only status query by saying it 'returns' current state. It adds useful behavioral context by advising the agent to verify minting is active before attempting a mint, and no annotations are present to contradict or supplement this. It does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, but the name and language make that clear enough for this simple read tool.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second adds a clear, actionable usage instruction. 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?

The description is complete for a simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool. It enumerates the expected return contents (price, minted total, remaining supply, active flag, contract addresses) and tells the agent what to do with the result. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential information an agent needs.

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 input schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter guidance.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns current Ashfields mint status' and enumerates the exact data fields returned. This clearly distinguishes get_mint_info from siblings like mint_ashfield and trigger_distribute, which perform actions rather than report 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to confirm minting is open before attempting a mint.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not discuss when not to use it or directly compare it with sibling tools.

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