minimax_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'last-known' metadata, implying the data may not be real-time, which is a useful behavior hint. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or how the tool behaves if no session exists.

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 extremely concise, using a single phrase to convey the core purpose without any filler words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word 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?

Despite having an output schema and no parameters, the description remains vague. It doesn't clarify what 'static configuration' includes or what 'session metadata' entails, nor does it mention any operational constraints or error conditions. An agent would need to inspect the output schema or call the tool to understand its full behavior.

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 schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain about parameters; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb (Return) and resource (static configuration + last-known session metadata), which conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from minimax_status, which likely also returns state-related information, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like minimax_status or minimax_window. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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