Cairo Multisig

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Returns the source code... formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk', which are critical behavioral traits for a generator tool. This goes beyond a minimal description and gives the agent confidence about output and side-effect safety.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence is a front-loaded statement of the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential output and side-effect info. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema details. This is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 tool has a rich schema (5 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema. The description compensates by explicitly describing the return format (Markdown code block) and the key non-side-effect ('Does not write to disk'). It does not cover usage time or alternatives, but for a straightforward generator, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning all five parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 starts with a clear, specific action: 'Make a multi-signature smart contract'. It immediately identifies the resource (multi-sig contract) and the core requirement (quorum of registered signers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cairo-governor or cairo-erc20, which serve different contract types.

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 usage by defining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'use this for multisig, use cairo-governor for governance'). There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name and description.

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