Compile Guarded Rpc Request

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., does it modify state?), required permissions, or expected outcomes. For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral detail is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is appropriately sized for the minimum, but front-loading is not an issue due to shortness. Structure is adequate but not optimal.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the overall workflow, the meaning of 'Delta v7 guarded RPC request contract', or how this tool fits into the broader set of sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use it 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples. The schema already does the heavy lifting, so the description contributes no additional semantic value.

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 'Compile a Delta v7 guarded RPC request contract' uses a specific verb ('compile') and resource ('guarded RPC request contract'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dl_plan_* or dl_execute_*, which are also related to RPC operations. The purpose is clear but lacks contextual distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dl_plan_object_update or dl_execute_safe_apply. The description offers no context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or situations to avoid, leaving the agent without decision support.

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