Stylus ERC1155

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly discloses key behavioral traits: it 'Returns the source code... in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk.' This goes beyond the bare minimum by clarifying side effects and return format, which is especially useful for a code generator.

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: the first states the purpose, the second states return behavior and side-effect. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence 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?

For a simple generator with no output schema, the description explains the return format (Markdown code block) and explicitly notes no disk write, which covers important behavioral context. It does not explain how to use the returned code or list parameter options, but those are documented in the schema, so the description is largely complete.

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 each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'burnable' means 'Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the ERC-1155 standard, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stylus-erc20 (fungible) and stylus-erc721 (different NFT standard), and states that it returns source code, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool (for ERC-1155 token generation) but provides no explicit comparison or exclusion relative to alternatives like stylus-erc20 or solidity-erc1155. It lacks any 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools.

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