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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool submits on-chain or just builds, what side effects occur, or any permissions required (e.g., signing). The word 'build' implies construction only, but without confirmation, an agent may misuse it.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose, then lists inputs compactly. At 43 words, it is dense but not redundant. Could be split for clarity, but remains efficient.

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?

Lists all required inputs (12 params) and their types (proofs, ciphertexts, accounts). However, with no output schema, it omits return values, next steps (e.g., execute), and prerequisites. For a complex saga builder, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% (every parameter described). The description adds byte-size context (e.g., equality 320 B, validity 544 B) and clarifies relationships (e.g., 'three ephemeral ctx-state pubkeys' mapping to context accounts). This supplements the schema's base64 descriptions.

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 'Build the 5-tx Transfer saga' with a specific verb and resource, and lists required proofs and ciphertexts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., ct_deposit_build) by mentioning transfer-specific components, but could be clearer about the saga's purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., prior account creation, proof generation), or when not to use it. The description assumes agent already has proofs and accounts ready, but does not state this explicitly.

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