disable_master_readiness

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

No annotations provided, so description fully responsible. Declares 'Read-only', signaling no mutation. Explains what it checks and returns. However, does not explicitly state it does not modify state beyond 'Read-only', which is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. Minor jargon ('ROTATION WIZARD gate') but not excessive. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so return values are described (safeToDisable, proven, reasons). Tool purpose, prerequisite, and read-only nature covered. Missing parameter documentation for network and lack of return structure details limit completeness. Adequate for a pre-check tool but not exhaustive.

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 0%. Description mentions 'this account's master key' implying the 'account' parameter, but never explicitly describes it or 'network'. The network parameter with enum (mainnet/testnet) is completely unaddressed. Agent may infer account but not network.

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's purpose: checking safety of disabling master key by verifying alternative signer existence. It specifies the checks (regular key signed, signer list exists) and return values (safeToDisable, proven, reasons). Distinguishes from sibling build_disable_master_unsigned by saying 'Run this BEFORE'.

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 says 'Run this BEFORE build_disable_master_unsigned', providing clear ordering relative to a sibling tool. Also labels it a 'ROTATION WIZARD gate', implying it's a prerequisite check.

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