agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't confirm safety, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'info' includes. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient—it should describe the return format, potential errors, or 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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted wording or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It effectively communicates the essential action in minimal space.

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 (a check operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'info' is returned, error conditions, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool in a domain with many siblings (e.g., 'intentUnlockSlow'), more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with one parameter ('transferId') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Check if a transfer can be unlocked and get info about it'. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('transfer'), and outcome ('get info'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCanReverseSlowTransfer' or 'intentUnlockSlow', which would require more specific scope details.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or sibling tools like 'getCanReverseSlowTransfer' (which checks reversibility) or 'intentUnlockSlow' (which performs the unlock). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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