Prepare AA Dry Run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description explicitly discloses that the tool does not sign, broadcast, or mutate local state, and that dry-run tools are not marked idempotent and are not retried by default. It also discloses the network default and dual-network behavior, adding substantial operational context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information - recommendation, safety, and network behavior - and every sentence carries practical value. It is long, but each section addresses a distinct fail mode: no side effects, retry behavior, network ambiguity, and unit misuse.

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?

The description gives enough for safe and correct invocation: what it does, how to select network, how to express amounts, what side effects to expect, and how to present raw output amounts. It is missing only a fuller explanation of the return payload structure and the address/trigger shape, which would matter more given there is no output schema.

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 0% schema description coverage, this description compensates well: it explains the network parameter, its default, and the need to confirm intent, and it emphasizes raw-unit conversion for trigger amounts. It does not explicitly document the address parameter or the exact shape of the trigger payload, but the core ambiguity around units and network is resolved.

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 action - simulating an Obyte autonomous-agent trigger - and names the resource, the selected network's hub. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling obyte_dry_run_aa; calling itself 'Recommended' is helpful but not a clear differentiator.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as the recommended choice for simulating an AA trigger, notes that it does not sign/broadcast, and gives a practical network-confirmation instruction. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' or when-not-to-use list, so it stops short of fully routing against sibling tools.

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