Solidity Governor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of side-effect disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns source code formatted in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which are essential behaviors. It does not mention other potential behaviors like error handling or network access, but the main side-effects are covered.

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 long, with the core purpose stated first and additional behavior (output format and no disk write) in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides key context: it returns source code and has no filesystem side effect. Since the schema covers all parameters in detail, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. It lacks a high-level overview of configuration choices, but this is not critical given the schema richness.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all 17 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description mentions no specific parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. Baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make a contract to implement governance') and clearly identifies the resource (a governance contract, such as for a DAO). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is unique among the listed code 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 generating Solidity governance contracts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like cairo-governor or stellar-governor. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit from the tool's name and context.

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