audit_contract

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 lists the steps but does not disclose behavioral traits like time requirements, destructive actions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a 'full audit', more transparency is needed.

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 emoji, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and brief, though it could benefit from structured bullet points for clarity.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should detail what the report contains. It only mentions 'generate report' without specifying format or how results are presented, leaving gaps for a complex multi-step tool.

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% with clear descriptions (address, chain list, include_holder_analysis default). The description adds context but not new parameter-level info beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it's a full smart contract audit combining multiple sub-tasks (fetch source, scan vulnerabilities, analyze holders, generate report). It distinguishes from siblings like check_holders, fetch_contract, scan_vulns by being the one-stop solution.

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 use for a comprehensive audit, with sibling tools for individual steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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