gas_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool runs tests (potential for state changes but minimal), generates a report, and notes that zkSync gas values are aggregate-only. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the report is saved or returned.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a parenthetical note. Every word adds value, front-loading the core purpose immediately.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the output format, where the report is written, or how to interpret results. It only notes a limitation of zkSync values, leaving agents uncertain about what to expect from the tool.

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 detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., projectPath, profile, filter). The description adds the overall action context but does not further clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline 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 clearly states that the tool runs tests and generates a gas usage report, specifying the underlying command (forge test --zksync --gas-report) and a key limitation about zkSync gas values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'test' (plain test execution) and 'snapshot'.

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 implies usage when a gas report is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'test' or 'snapshot'. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving guidance to inference.

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