cairo-account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This is valuable for an agent to understand the tool's output and safety. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides key details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and side effects. The 9 parameters are well-documented in the schema, though the description does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a code-generation tool.

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 description. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context to any parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose: 'Make a custom smart contract that represents an account'. It defines an account contract's role and specifies that it returns source code. The sibling tools (e.g., cairo-erc20, cairo-multisig) represent different contract types, so this tool is well-distinguished as a base account contract generator.

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 implies the tool is for creating Cairo account contracts but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like cairo-multisig or solidity-account. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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