build_l2_to_l1_withdrawal

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively carries the burden by stating the tool does NOT sign and that the withdrawal has a challenge period. It does not cover idempotency, rate limits, or authorization, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and include essential behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Covers purpose, return type (calldata), and a critical timing caveat. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., being on L2, sufficient balance) or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling tool set, it is largely complete.

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% (amountWei lacks description). The description adds context by indicating the call is for ETH withdrawal, implying amountWei is in wei, but does not provide explicit parameter details beyond the schema's destination description.

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 the verb 'Build', resource 'UNSIGNED ArbSys.withdrawEth call', and purpose 'L2->L1 ETH withdrawal'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that are unrelated to L2-to-L1 withdrawals.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool only builds calldata and never signs, and notes the multi-day challenge period. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools for signing or executing the withdrawal.

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