Execute AA Getter

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds the 'Raw hub read' characterization and the network-default/confirmation requirement. This is useful but does not disclose error behavior or the exact structure of the returned result. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the network note. Every sentence earns its place; the network paragraph is necessary given the dual-network setup. No redundancy or fluff.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the optional args, and the critical network-confirmation protocol. It does not specify the return format, but 'returns the getter result' is adequate. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, assuming network ambiguity is resolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that args are optional JSON and that network defaults to mainnet and requires user confirmation if not explicit. It does not explain address or getter, but these are largely self-evident from the tool name and context. The description adds partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Executes an autonomous-agent getter' and clearly indicates it returns the getter result. The 'Raw hub read' preamble adds low-level context. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., obyte_dry_run_aa or obyte_get_aa_state_vars), but the operation is distinct enough to be inferred.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only operational guidance is the network selection: confirming which network when the user has not been explicit. This is a parameter-handling note, not usage guidance. There is no mention of scenarios where a sibling should be preferred.

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