Dry Run AA

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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a simulation that does not sign or broadcast, is not retried by default, and is not idempotent. It also explains network defaulting and output amount units, which is substantial context that annotations do not cover.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs, each earning its place: core behavior, network handling, and output formatting. Key facts are front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides valuable context about output amounts and display preferences. It lacks a detailed explanation of the full return structure, but the core call semantics and network handling are sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'network' parameter (choice, default, and confirmation requirement) and 'trigger' (JSON trigger payload). 'address' is not explicitly described, but its role as the autonomous agent address is implied by the tool name and description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Simulates triggering an autonomous agent with a JSON trigger payload.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not sign or broadcast'), but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like obyte_prepare_aa_dry_run, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear context: it explains the dual-network behavior, instructs to confirm the network when the user is not explicit, and warns against showing raw integers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obyte_prepare_aa_dry_run, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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