stylus-erc20

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key traits: 'Returns the source code ... formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.' This informs the agent that the tool is read-only (no side effects) and the output format. It could mention that it doesn't deploy or mutate state, but the given info is mostly adequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first states the core purpose, the second explains output and side effects. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (generating ERC-20 with options) and lack of output schema, the description explains the output format (Markdown code block) and confirms no disk writes. It doesn't mention that the output is Rust code for Stylus, but the name implies it. Overall, it covers the essential behavioral and output aspects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond 'Make a fungible token.' The schema already describes each parameter (name, permit, burnable, etc.) adequately. Thus, no extra value from the description.

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 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard,' which identifies the tool's function and resource. The sibling tools include other ERC-20 generators (solidity-erc20, cairo-erc20), but the name 'stylus-erc20' and description imply it's for Stylus, though not explicitly stated. This slight ambiguity prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solidity-erc20 or cairo-erc20. For an agent choosing among multiple ERC-20 generators, this omission is critical. The only contextual clue is the tool name, which may not be sufficient.

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