intentAaveDeposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome ('earn interest') but lacks critical details: whether this is a write operation requiring authorization, gas costs, transaction finality, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a financial transaction tool with 3 parameters, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse. Every element ('Deposits tokens', 'into the Aave protocol', 'to supply liquidity and earn interest') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: what permissions are needed, gas implications, return values, error handling, or how it integrates with other Aave tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe/effective use is lacking.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (chainId, asset address, amount format). It doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't add value.

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 action ('Deposits tokens') and target ('into the Aave protocol'), with the purpose 'to supply liquidity and earn interest'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'depositWETH' or 'intentDepositAcross' by specifying Aave protocol, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Aave tools like 'intentAaveBorrow' or 'intentAaveWithdraw' beyond the verb 'deposits'.

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 (e.g., token approval, sufficient balance), when to choose this over other deposit tools like 'depositWETH', or how it relates to sibling Aave tools (borrow, repay, withdraw). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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