Cairo Vesting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns code in a Markdown block and does not write to disk, which clarifies the side-effect-free nature. It lacks details about failure modes or prerequisites, but for a code generator this is reasonably 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-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a critical behavioral note about return format and non-persistence. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover return values, which it does. It explains the generated contract's purpose and the output format. It could add more about parameter interdependencies, but those are already handled in the schema, making the context sufficiently complete.

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 tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; all parameter explanations are in the schema itself, so it neither enhances nor detracts.

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 function: generating a vesting smart contract that manages gradual ERC-20 token release. It specifies the resource (vesting contract) and behavior (returns source code), distinguishing it from sibling contract generators like cairo-erc20 or cairo-custom.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—whenever a vesting contract is needed. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on vesting, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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