Cairo Custom

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

The description discloses valuable behavioral traits: it returns the source code formatted in a Markdown code block and explicitly states it does not write to disk. With no annotations provided, this fills the safety/behavioral gap and clarifies the tool's non-persistent, generation-only nature. It does not elaborate on error handling or permissions, but that is acceptable for a code generation tool.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes essential information: the function, the return format, and the non-write behavior. There is no redundant text or 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?

Given the substantial schema coverage (83%) and the simple behavior of a code generator, the description is sufficient: it explains the core action, the output format, and that it does not write to disk. However, it lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 high (83%) and the schema contains detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., access types, dar delays, pausable, upgradeable). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 'Make a custom smart contract' and specifies the output as source code in a Markdown code block. The tool name 'cairo-custom' together with sibling context (e.g., solidity-custom, cairo-erc20) distinguishes it as a custom Cairo contract generator, avoiding confusion with standard token or other language templates.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over the standard templates (erc20, erc721, etc.) or other custom generators (solidity-custom), and there are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives described.

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