midnight_call_contract

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses the call process (load contract, prepare args, generate proof, submit), privacy features (private inputs hidden, ZK proofs), and that state-changing requires wallet. It also mentions simulation via the simulate parameter. However, it does not cover error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites like network connection.

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?

Concise and well-structured with bullet points for circuit types, numbered call process, privacy features, and a clear example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Approximately 150 words, appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers purpose, circuit types, process, privacy, and example. Mentions return values (result or state changes). Lacks details on error scenarios, network-specific usage, or parameter constraints. With 7 params and no output schema, this is adequate but could be more complete (e.g., simulate behavior details).

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining circuit types and the rationale behind parameters like arguments and private_state_id. The example shows how to structure contract_address, circuit_name, and arguments. However, parameters private_state_id, wallet_seed, and simulate are only mentioned in schema without detailed description, and schema coverage is 57%.

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?

Clearly states 'Execute a circuit call on a deployed Midnight smart contract.' Distinguishes circuit types (public, private, state-changing) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like midnight_compile_contract or midnight_deploy_contract by focusing on calling an existing contract. The example reinforces the 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each circuit type: public for read-only, private for private witnesses, state-changing for modifications (requires wallet). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for deploying contracts). Clear context but no direct exclusions.

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