cairo-custom

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the tool does not write to disk and returns a Markdown code block, which are important side-effect notes. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, cost, validation behavior, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds critical details about output format and side effects. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. It covers the basic purpose and output format but omits details like the target blockchain (Cairo for StarkNet implied by sibling names), parameter interactions, or constraints. For a code-generation tool, more context would help, but the description is not missing essential information.

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%), so the input schema itself documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: it only restates the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could optionally clarify how parameters affect the generated code.

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 creates a custom smart contract and returns source code in Markdown. It distinguishes the action (make custom) from the output format, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like cairo-erc20 or solidity-custom, which also generate contracts. The verb 'Make' and resource 'custom smart contract' are specific, but lack explicit context for when to choose this over standard 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not indicate that this is for arbitrary logic while other tools are for specific standards (ERC20, ERC721, etc.). A user would need to infer from the name 'custom' that it's a general-purpose generator, but no explicit advice is given.

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