Stylus ERC1155

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which informs the agent of the output format and lack of side effects. It does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors, but for a code generation tool this is reasonable.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences that deliver the core purpose and key behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the main action and directly states the output and side-effect. 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?

The description provides the essential context for using the tool: it generates an ERC-1155 contract and returns the source code without persisting to disk. The input schema covers parameters, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit note about Markdown formatting. It could mention the specific language/framework (Stylus implies Rust/Arbitrum) but the title already conveys that.

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%, with all four parameters documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: "Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard." The verb is specific (Make), the resource is explicit (non-fungible token per ERC-1155), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the standard. It also clarifies the output format, further reinforcing what the tool does.

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 when to use this tool by referencing the ERC-1155 standard, which contrasts with siblings stylus-erc20 and stylus-erc721. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, but the naming of the standard provides clear context for selection.

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