cairo-vesting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns source code as a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is key behavioral information for a code generator. It does not cover potential errors or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loading the purpose and then specifying return format and side effects. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return format and non-persistence. However, it lacks context on error handling, network requirements, or usage dependencies, making it incomplete for a rich understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it repeats the concept of a vesting schedule but does not explain parameter formats or dependencies.

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 action: 'Make a vesting smart contract' with a specific resource ('ERC-20 tokens to a designated beneficiary based on a predefined vesting schedule'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cairo-erc20' or 'cairo-erc721' by focusing on vesting functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools for different contract types. Context is implied only by the tool name.

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