tool_dispute_open

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 that the defendant's stake is automatically slashed if they lose, and that the description is permanently logged. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, other side effects, or whether the dispute can be canceled.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds information, though the argument list could be more succinctly integrated.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic action and one key behavioral effect. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., both agents must have stakes).

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides minimal context for each parameter (e.g., 'Agent filing the complaint' for claimant_id, 'What happened (will be permanently logged)' for description). This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states 'Open a dispute between two agents.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like tool_dispute_resolve, tool_slash_stake, etc.

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 explains a consequence (stake slashing if defendant loses) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_dispute_resolve. No exclusions or context are given.

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