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 specify whether this is a simple lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has side effects. For a tool with 4 required parameters in a financial/blockchain context, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 required parameters in a blockchain/transfer approval context and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'slow transfer', what 'guardian approval' means in this system, what format the response takes (boolean, object, etc.), or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the parameter set and sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (user, to, id, amount). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond implying these are needed to evaluate approval requirements. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or their validation rules.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('if a transfer needs guardian approval'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSlowGuardianInfo' or 'getSlowStatus', which appear related to the same 'slow' transfer system, leaving some ambiguity about scope boundaries.

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. With sibling tools like 'getSlowGuardianInfo', 'getSlowStatus', 'getCanReverseSlowTransfer', and various 'intent' tools for slow transfers, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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