agentek-eth

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. While it mentions the default rate mode, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Repays' but not explicit), potential transaction costs, rate limits, or what happens upon execution. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides important default behavior. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 what happens after repayment (success/failure states), doesn't mention authentication or permission requirements, and provides minimal context about the operation's consequences. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to guide safe 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default for 'rateMode' (2 for variable), but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, format specifics, or edge cases. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Repays your Aave debt') and resource ('Aave'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'intentAaveBorrow' or 'intentAaveWithdraw'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 context by mentioning the default rate mode, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'intentAaveBorrow' or other debt management tools. It provides some operational guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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