radiant_open_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and gives no details about side effects (e.g., locking funds, on-chain commitment), prerequisites, errors, or response format. The word 'Create' implies mutation, but the description does not elaborate on what happens after invocation.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations; the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical operational context. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative without being wordy.

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 tool involves creating a micropayment channel, which has significant complexity (funding, timeouts, parties). The description does not mention return values, required funds, channel lifecycle, or relationship to 'radiant_update_channel'. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves too much to the agent's inference, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide context beyond the schema entries.

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 ('Create initial state') and the resource ('micropayment channel between two agents'), and mentions the contract pattern. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'radiant_update_channel', but it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast itself, which would make it a 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. It does not mention that this is for opening a new channel or that 'radiant_update_channel' is for modifying an existing one. Without such context, an agent may not know when to select this over related tools.

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