erc7984

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 and does not write to disk, indicating a read-only generation action. However, it does not detail potential side effects or requirements (e.g., no destructive actions, no network access beyond parameter).

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 purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose and output behavior). No wasted words.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, constraints) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not summarize key constraints (e.g., decimal limits, incompatibilities) that are defined in the schema but not in the description. However, it does cover the essential 'what' and 'output'.

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 schema already documents all parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond stating the output format, making it baseline adequate.

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 purpose: generating a confidential fungible token in Solidity according to ERC-7984, similar to ERC-20 but with confidentiality. It also specifies that it returns source code as a Markdown block. This distinguishes it from siblings like solidity-erc20 and other contract generators.

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 for confidential tokens but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned despite the extensive sibling list. The agent must infer context from the name and standard reference.

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