agentek-eth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a withdrawal (implying a write/mutation), but lacks details on permissions needed, gas costs, confirmation times, or error conditions. It mentions redeeming aTokens, which adds some context, but overall behavioral disclosure is minimal for a financial transaction tool.

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 waste. It front-loads the core action and resource, 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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover expected outputs, error cases, or important behavioral aspects like transaction finality or cost implications, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the withdrawal involves aTokens, but this is already inferred from the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Withdraws tokens') and target resource ('from Aave'), specifying it redeems supplied assets (aTokens). It distinguishes from siblings like 'intentWithdrawFromSlow' by naming Aave, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Aave tools like 'intentAaveDeposit' beyond the verb.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While it mentions redeeming aTokens, it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., must have supplied assets first) or compare to other withdrawal tools like 'intentWithdrawFromSlow' or 'withdrawWETH'.

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