gm_agent_gm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and exceeds it: it discloses dry-run-by-default behavior, that confirm:true broadcasts a real transaction, the 24h cooldown, gas requirements on Ink, and that private keys are never stored or logged. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the action, the prerequisite, the safety-critical confirm behavior, and the gas requirement. Critical information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: registration prerequisite, dry-run default, approval requirement, cooldown, and gas. It does not explicitly describe error cases such as cooldown violations or insufficient gas, but it covers enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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% and parameter descriptions are already informative, establishing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the dry-run default, what confirm:true actually does, the gas gate, and the private key handling guarantee.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Say GM as a registered agent on gm.ink: calls gm() on DailyAgentGM'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling registration and targeted-GM tools by requiring prior registration and by targeting the daily GM action.

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 gives clear context and prerequisites: run gm_register_agent first, the caller must already be registered, dry-run by default, and confirm only after explicit human approval. It does not explicitly contrast with gm_agent_gm_to or other siblings, so it stops short of a full when-to-use versus alternatives statement.

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