redeem_rob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully discloses that the tool returns an 'unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' which is critical behavioral context. However, it fails to describe the state changes (e.g., what happens to the ROB positions or iAssets during redemption) or any side effects.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first defines the action and target, while the second specifies the return format. There is no redundant or extraneous information; every word serves a distinct purpose.

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's complexity (6 parameters including oracle references and UTxO indices) and lack of output schema, the description provides the essential minimum by stating the return type (CBOR hex). However, for a complex DeFi mutation involving multiple UTxO references, the description is terse and lacks domain context (e.g., explaining the relationship between the oracle, iAsset UTxO, and redemption logic).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline score of 3. The description mentions 'one or more ROB positions,' which aligns with the array structure of 'redemptionRobs', but does not add semantic details, format constraints, or usage examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Redeem'), the resource ('iAssets'), and the target ('one or more ROB positions'). By explicitly naming 'ROB positions', it distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'redeem_cdp', ensuring the agent selects the correct redemption mechanism.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'redeem_cdp' or 'claim_rob', nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. While noting the return of an unsigned transaction implies a specific usage pattern (client-side signing), it does not constitute explicit selection criteria.

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