mint_create_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details that the signer is the insurer, funds coverage into escrow, payout triggers under specific conditions (oracle attestation, threshold, duration), and escrow returns on expiry. This covers key behavioral traits without contradictions.

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 paragraph with three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and fallback. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly dense. Every sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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 10 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description explains the full policy lifecycle (creation, trigger conditions, expiry). It covers all essential behavioral aspects, making it fully complete for the tool's context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'insurer escrows coverage_amount') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It meets the baseline.

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 'Create a parametric insurance policy on the FoundryNet devnet program,' specifying the verb (create), resource (parametric insurance policy), and context (devnet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_settle_policy and mint_attest by focusing on creation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create a parametric policy) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names imply alternatives, but the description lacks explicit guidance for tool selection.

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