OpenZeppelin Stylus Contracts

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This clarifies the output format and that it's a read-only generation tool, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences about the return format and disk behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the complexity of generating an ERC-1155 contract with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and disk behavior, but could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or limitations, especially since no annotations are provided to fill gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'supply' or 'burnable' affect the generated contract. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard.' It specifies the verb ('Make'), the resource ('non-fungible token'), and the standard ('ERC-1155'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stylus-erc20 and stylus-erc721 that handle different token standards.

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 by mentioning the ERC-1155 standard, which suggests it should be used for creating NFTs under that specific standard rather than ERC-20 or ERC-721. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which clarifies output format and side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or other operational constraints that would be helpful 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by output format and a key constraint. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with clear functionality.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output format adequately. However, for a tool that generates smart contract code with multiple configuration parameters, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, validation rules, or example usage, which would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'permit' or 'flashmint' affect the generated code). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Make a fungible token') and resource ('per the ERC-20 standard'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stylus-erc1155 and stylus-erc721 which handle different token standards. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the output format and what the tool does not do.

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 context by specifying it generates ERC-20 tokens, which helps differentiate from sibling tools for other standards. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of specific use cases for ERC-20 vs. ERC-721 or ERC-1155), and does not state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool generates source code and doesn't write to disk, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which add clear value: the first states purpose and output format, the second clarifies a key behavioral constraint. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint, but doesn't address error handling, authentication needs, or provide examples that would help an agent use it effectively in complex scenarios.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Make a non-fungible token') and resource ('per the ERC-721 standard'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like erc1155 and erc20 which handle different token standards. It also specifies the output format ('source code... in a Markdown code block') and clarifies what it doesn't do ('Does not write to disk').

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 context by specifying the ERC-721 standard, which helps differentiate it from ERC-1155 and ERC-20 siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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