run-relayer

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 states 'runs a relayer' but doesn't explain what this operation does (e.g., starts a process, configures a service, performs a one-time action), its effects (e.g., ongoing relay, resource consumption), or any constraints (e.g., permissions, dependencies). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core action, though it lacks detail.

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 (a 'run' operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'runs' means behaviorally, what a relayer is, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's function and use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Chains to relay between', 'Name of the validator chain'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Runs a relayer for specified chains' states a verb ('runs') and resource ('relayer'), but is vague about what 'runs' entails (e.g., starts, executes, manages) and what a 'relayer' does in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run-validator' or 'cross-chain-asset-transfer', leaving the specific purpose unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or relationships to sibling tools like 'run-validator' or 'deploy-chain', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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