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. It states this 'creates an intent' (implying a write operation that may require user confirmation or blockchain interaction), but doesn't clarify if this is a simulation, requires signing, has side effects, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely modifies blockchain state, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Creates an intent to approve token spending') efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 that likely performs a blockchain write operation (token approval) with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'intent' entails, how it differs from immediate execution, what happens after creation, or potential errors. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, 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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter meanings, relationships, or examples beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Creates an intent to approve') and the resource ('token spending'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentApproveSlowTransfer' or 'getAllowance', but the core functionality is well-defined.

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 like 'intentApproveSlowTransfer' (for slow transfers) or 'getAllowance' (to check existing approvals). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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