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. It mentions a 'timelock' which implies funds are locked for a delay period, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is a write operation (likely yes), if it requires specific permissions, gas costs, or what happens on failure. For a financial transaction tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational details.

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 front-loads the core action and key constraint ('with a timelock'). There is zero waste, 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?

Given the complexity of a financial deposit tool with timelock, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutability, error handling), expected outputs, or integration context, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the timelock implications or token address format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Deposit tokens or ETH') and target ('into SLOW contract with a timelock'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentDepositAcross' or 'depositWETH', which might also involve deposits but to different protocols or without timelocks.

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, such as needing approval for token deposits, or compare it to other deposit-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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