withdraw_reserves_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Build unsigned transactions' (not directly executing) and that it 'Returns base64-encoded transactions for signing', indicating the output format and non-mutating nature. The 'Owner/admin only' constraint is also disclosed. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple action statement.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Build unsigned transactions to withdraw accumulated reserves'), followed by essential constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the key aspects: the action, the target resource, access restrictions, output format, and non-execution behavior. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of base64-encoded transactions. Minor gaps like potential failure conditions or prerequisites are not critical for this transaction-builder context.

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 documents all four parameters with descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable per the baseline. While it omits details like the relationship between 'amount' and 'accumulated reserves', the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build unsigned transactions to withdraw accumulated reserves from a DorkFi lending market.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'withdraw_txn' by using 'reserves' and 'Owner/admin only', making the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context with 'Owner/admin only' and 'accumulated reserves', which implies this tool is for administrative reserve withdrawals rather than regular user withdrawals. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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