sap_preview_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only preview operation but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, or output format. The agent lacks information on whether the transaction is validated or if state is modified.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could benefit from including more detail without being verbose. Given the trade-off, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

The description lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify what the preview outputs (e.g., parsed instructions, simulation results, or errors), nor any prerequisites or constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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% coverage for both parameters (encoding and transaction), each with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: preview a Solana transaction before signing or submission. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('Solana transaction'), and the context implies differentiation from siblings like sap_sign_transaction or sap_submit_signed_transaction. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from tools like sap_decode_transaction.

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 minimal usage context ('before signing or submission') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used. No comparisons to sibling tools are made.

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