agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'creates an intent,' implying a preparatory or non-immediate action, but doesn't clarify what an 'intent' entails—such as whether it's reversible, requires confirmation, has side effects, or interacts with permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 creating a token transfer intent with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the intent does (e.g., is it submitted to a blockchain, stored locally?), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from other transfer tools. This makes it incomplete for safe and effective use by an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (token, amount, to, chainId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles 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 ('creates an intent') and the resource ('to transfer tokens'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'intentTransferFrom' or 'intentTransferPosition', which also involve transfer intents but with different mechanisms or contexts.

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. With many sibling tools like 'intentTransferFrom' and 'swap' that might handle similar token transfers, there's no indication of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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