reclaim

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the on-chain behavior: the wallet calls AuthCaptureEscrow's payer-only reclaim(paymentInfo) directly, signs and sends on Base, and waits for receipt. It also mentions what could go wrong (too early, already settled, not payer) and the return shape, giving complete behavioral transparency.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is packed with necessary operational details and is front-loaded with the core promise. Every sentence adds critical context (how it works, requirements, error cases, return value), so it earns its length without redundancy.

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 complex on-chain recovery tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: mechanism, prerequisites, error conditions, network (Base), and the return structure. It is complete enough for an agent to both select and safely invoke the 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?

The schema only defines task_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description compensates by explaining that it reads escrow_payment_info from GET /api/tasks/[id], making it clear that task_id identifies the task whose escrow info is needed. It does not explicitly state 'task_id is the task's UUID', but the context strongly implies it, which is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('reclaim') with a clear resource (unfilled budget from audited escrow) and distinguishes itself from close_task by framing it as a backstop requiring no operator. The purpose is unmistakable and well differentiated.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (only after authorization deadline, operator down, as backstop) and contrasts it with close_task as the normal path. It also lists hard requirements (must be payer, expiry passed) and error conditions, providing excellent usage guidance.

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