cross-chain-message-transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Transfers' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no mention of permissions required, whether this is an asynchronous operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide necessary context.

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 maximally concise with a single sentence containing only four words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains zero wasted words and is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 cross-chain operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'cross-chain message' entails, what happens after transfer, error conditions, or any operational context. The combination of minimal description with missing structured metadata creates significant gaps for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Transfers a cross-chain message' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'cross-chain-message-transfer' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cross-chain-asset-transfer' or explain what constitutes a 'message' versus an 'asset' in this context.

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. With siblings like 'cross-chain-asset-transfer', 'deploy-chain', 'deploy-warp-route', 'run-relayer', and 'run-validator', there's no indication of when message transfer is appropriate versus asset transfer or 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.