OpenZeppelin Stylus Contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which informs the agent of the output format and lack of side effects. It does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors, but for a code generation tool this is reasonable.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences that deliver the core purpose and key behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the main action and directly states the output and side-effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 provides the essential context for using the tool: it generates an ERC-1155 contract and returns the source code without persisting to disk. The input schema covers parameters, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit note about Markdown formatting. It could mention the specific language/framework (Stylus implies Rust/Arbitrum) but the title already conveys that.

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%, with all four parameters documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 the tool's function: "Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard." The verb is specific (Make), the resource is explicit (non-fungible token per ERC-1155), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the standard. It also clarifies the output format, further reinforcing what the tool does.

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 when to use this tool by referencing the ERC-1155 standard, which contrasts with siblings stylus-erc20 and stylus-erc721. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, but the naming of the standard provides clear context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and that it 'does not write to disk,' providing clear side-effect information. This goes beyond a bare schema and addresses key behavioral aspects.

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: the first states the primary purpose, and the second covers output and side effects. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 fully explains what the tool generates, the output format, and that it does not write to disk. Combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage and the presence of all necessary context, no critical information is missing.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the description need not add detail. It provides no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 starts with 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard,' naming both the resource (fungible token) and specific standard, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools for ERC-1155 and ERC-721. It also clarifies the output ('Returns the source code of the generated contract'), removing any ambiguity about what 'make' entails.

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 states the ERC-20 standard, giving clear context for when to use this tool (for ERC-20 token source generation). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the output is source code formatted in a Markdown code block and that the tool does not write to disk, which is a key side-effect disclosure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or any potential failures, though those are less critical for a code generation 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 efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second covers the output format and the explicit lack of disk writes. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 code generation tool with a simple purpose, the description is complete: it explains what is produced, how it is returned, and what is not done. The parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers return format since no output schema exists. The only minor gap is not mentioning the nested info object, but the schema handles that.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but none is needed because the schema already thoroughly explains each parameter, including the nested info object and its properties.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Make' and clearly specifies the resource: a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools stylus-erc20 (fungible) and stylus-erc1155 (multi-token standard).

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 usage for generating ERC-721 token source code but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. No reference to alternatives is made, leaving the selection decision to inference from the tool name and standard.

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