Stellar Governor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and side-effect behavior. It explicitly states 'Does not write to disk' and 'Returns the source code... in a Markdown code block', providing crucial non-persistence and output format information. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like network access or validation, so it stops short of being fully 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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds essential behavioral details (output format and non-persistent nature) with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear statement of the return value (source code in Markdown) and the non-disk-writing behavior. The schema handles parameter details. The main gap is a lack of context about how parameters influence the generated contract, but the schema descriptions mitigate this. Overall, it's reasonably complete for a code-generation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so it scores the baseline of 3. It doesn't need to add more because the schema already handles parameter semantics well.

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 the verb 'Make' and clearly states the output: source code of a governor contract formatted in Markdown. It distinguishes the tool as a governance contract generator, but it doesn't explicitly mention Stellar or Soroban in the description itself, leaving some ambiguity when compared to sibling governor tools like solidity-governor and cairo-governor.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention Stellar-specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool's name, which is insufficient for selecting among multiple governor tools.

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