Analyze Autonomous Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: network defaults to mainnet, state vars are sorted by key and may be truncated, amounts are raw smallest units, and output includes a decimals-aware balance_summary. It also warns never to show raw integers and points to resolver tools for decimal conversion. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 longer than minimal, but every section earns its place: the first paragraph states purpose and key outputs, the second addresses the dual-network caveat, and the third provides essential unit/display handling. Information is front-loaded and logically grouped, though the amount-handling paragraph is dense and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents. It covers balance_summary, state vars, optional responses, truncation, raw units, and network selection, and even gives explicit actions for decimal conversion. It does not fully specify the shape of balance_summary or the AA response object, but for a state-inspection tool this is sufficient context.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the network parameter, state_var_prefix usage, and include_responses. It implies the address parameter is the AA address. However, include_balances is never mentioned as a toggle, and the exact filtering semantics of state_var_prefix are not fully described. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 names a specific verb ('summarizing'), a specific resource ('Obyte autonomous agent'), and lists concrete outputs (balances with balance_summary, state vars by prefix, optional AA responses). It also positions itself as the recommended tool for AA debugging, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like obyte_analyze_address or obyte_get_aa_balances without needing to open their schemas.

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 says it is 'Recommended tool for summarizing an Obyte autonomous agent' and 'Use for AA debugging or state inspection', giving clear context for when to invoke it. It also instructs the agent to confirm mainnet vs testnet when the user hasn't specified, which is an actionable usage rule. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when NOT to use them, so some inference is still required.

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