get_mining_status

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

The description transparently lists all fields returned (active/completed, times, tokens, claim readiness), giving a clear behavioral model. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects.

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 sentence that is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists many return fields without being overly verbose, but could be slightly more concise.

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, the description adequately explains the return values (session status, times in milliseconds, token counts, claim readiness). It misses specifying the format of timestamps (e.g., epoch), but covers essential aspects for a status-checking tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter information because none is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'mining session status', specifying exactly what status information is returned. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like start_mining and claim_mining, which have different purposes.

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 implies the tool should be used to check mining session status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like start_mining or claim_mining. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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