Cairo Account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses key behavior: returns source code formatted in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This is important for understanding side effects and safety. It doesn't mention dependencies or network usage, but it's a code generator so the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact, roughly 50 words, and front-loaded with the purpose. The second paragraph provides essential behavioral details (return format, no disk write). Every sentence contributes meaning, with no unnecessary filler.

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 code generator with 9 params and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what the tool generates, the return format, and its non-persistent nature. The schema covers all parameters individually. The description doesn't explain parameter combinations, but that's not required given the rich schema. It is adequately complete for common 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 every parameter already has a clear explanation. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Make' and clearly identifies the resource: a custom smart contract representing an account. It explains the purpose (validate and execute transactions) and returns generated source code. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling account generators (e.g., solidity-account), the Cairo context is evident from the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description states the tool can be extended for custom logic but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Given many sibling code generators exist, this lack of guidance makes selection harder for an AI agent.

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