Solidity Account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states return format ('source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block') and a critical side-effect ('Does not write to disk'). This is valuable behavioral transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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, immediately front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by key output and side-effect information. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it generates, the return format, and that it does not persist to disk. It does not explain all parameter behaviors, but the schema handles that comprehensively. The description is sufficient 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-level details, but the schema already provides exhaustive descriptions for all 9 parameters, including enums and options. The description's mention of the ERC-4337 standard gives some context for the parameters.

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: 'Make an account contract that follows the ERC-4337 standard.' It uses a specific verb ('Make'), a specific resource ('account contract'), and a standard ('ERC-4337') that distinguishes it from sibling code generators like cairo-account and solidity-erc20.

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: it is for Solidity account contracts following ERC-4337, which implicitly distinguishes it from Cairo or other contract types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes the context clear.

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