depositToYearnVault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states basic functionality and token constraints, omitting important details like approval requirements, failure modes, gas implications, or return behavior for a deposit operation.

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 consists of two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and constraining usage. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no redundant information.

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 complexity of a DeFi deposit operation, the description lacks critical context such as output (e.g., transaction hash), prerequisites (e.g., token approval), and potential error conditions. It is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for safe and informed usage.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond restating what the schema already provides (e.g., supported tokens). It does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 action ('Deposit tokens into a Yearn vault'), specifies the network ('Katana network'), and lists the supported tokens, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bridgeAssets or withdrawFromYearnVault.

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 that tokens must already be on Katana but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over bridging or swapping alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance and alternative recommendations, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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