hedera_prng

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the transaction is unsigned, which is important behavioral info, but does not detail side effects, costs, or return values. Some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no extraneous information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the optional bound. However, it fails to explain the 'payerAccountId' parameter or the return format (e.g., the transaction type). It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 50% with only 'range' described. The description adds meaning to 'range' by stating it bounds the result to [0, range), but provides no additional semantics for 'payerAccountId', leaving its purpose unclear beyond the schema name.

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 the tool builds a pseudo-random number generation transaction, specifying it is native on-chain RNG. This verb-resource combination uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools which deal with tokens, accounts, contracts, 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 implies the tool is for generating random numbers optionally bounded by a range, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The context signals show no exclusions, but the description lacks explicit usage context.

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