preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it's read-only, takes no key, and returns {decoded, risk_flags, ok}. It lists specific patterns flagged. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the essential behavioral traits are transparent.

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 sentence plus a returns statement. It is front-loaded with 'SAFETY:' and every word adds value. No redundancy.

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 complexity (nested object, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, safety aspects, and return structure. It could mention chain compatibility but is substantially complete.

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%, so both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only states 'takes no key' which is behavioral. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 decodes unsigned EVM transactions and flags drain patterns. It uses specific verbs ('decode' and 'flag') and resource ('unsigned EVM transaction'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect_signature' and 'check_action' by emphasizing pre-signing safety.

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 explicitly says to use BEFORE signing and that it's read-only with no key needed. This implies when to use (pre-signing) and that it's safe. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is strong.

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