Get GenLayer Contract Interface

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

The description states the tool normalizes a schema into categories, adding helpful output structure context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). However, it does not elaborate on behavior like error handling, authentication needs, or the format of the returned interface categorization. The annotations already cover safety, so the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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, short sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output structure. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what the output contains (constructor, view, write methods). It could mention that at least one parameter is needed, but given both are optional, this is a minor gap.

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 100% with descriptive parameter names ('code' and 'address') and descriptions in the schema (Base64-encoded code, deployed address). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Normalize' and clearly states the resource is a contract schema, with output organized into 'constructor, view methods, and write methods.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like genlayer_get_contract_schema, which retrieves the raw schema, or genlayer_call_contract, which executes a method. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios (e.g., inspection vs. execution), prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for contract interaction, the absence of usage context reduces the agent's ability to choose correctly.

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