cross-chain-asset-transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'transfers'), requires specific prerequisites (warp routes, balances), involves multiple transactions (one per chain hop), and provides tracking capabilities (message IDs). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or confirmation times, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (FUNCTIONALITY, PREREQUISITES, etc.) and uses bullet points for readability. While comprehensive, some sections like EXAMPLE USE CASES could be more concise. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with core functionality, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 cross-chain transfers, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job covering prerequisites, parameters, behavior, and examples. It explains the multi-step nature and output structure. However, it lacks details on error cases, timeouts, or specific chain naming conventions, which could be important for robust 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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains parameter purposes with examples (e.g., 'USDC from Ethereum to Polygon'), clarifies units ('wei or smallest token units'), and specifies default behavior for recipient. This provides practical guidance that enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('transfers tokens/assets between multiple blockchain networks') and resources ('using Hyperlane's cross-chain infrastructure'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on asset transfers rather than message transfers, chain deployment, or route deployment, making the differentiation explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including prerequisites like requiring a warp route (with a specific alternative tool named: 'deploy-warp-route') and conditions like sufficient balances. It also outlines use cases and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on asset transfers rather than other cross-chain operations.

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