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. It states this is an unlock operation (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's reversible, gas costs, confirmation requirements, or what happens upon success/failure. For a blockchain transaction tool, this is 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 blockchain transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unlock' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this interacts with the SLOW contract system. The context demands more completeness.

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 already fully documents both parameters (chainId and transferId). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Unlock') and the resource ('a time-locked transfer in SLOW contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'canUnlockSlow' or 'intentReverseSlowTransfer', which prevents a perfect score.

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 'canUnlockSlow' (which likely checks unlockability) or 'intentReverseSlowTransfer'. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for using this unlock function.

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