ugf_sol_wait_user_sig_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool awaits a message and returns a serialized message for local signing, and that the agent must then call another tool. This adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on polling behavior (max_attempts, interval_ms), error handling, and whether the operation is read-only or destructive.

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 two sentences and efficiently conveys the core purpose and next steps. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it lacks structured details about parameters, which could be added without excessive length.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides high-level workflow context but fails to explain param semantics, polling mechanics, timeouts, or failure modes, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (digest, max_attempts, interval_ms). The agent has no guidance on their meaning or usage, requiring inference from the tool name alone.

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 the tool waits for a Solana user-sig message prepared by UGF, specifies the return format (base64), and outlines the subsequent action (signing and calling ugf_sol_submit_user_sig). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the workflow step.

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 implies when to use this tool: before signing and submitting a user signature. It explicitly names the follow-up tool (ugf_sol_submit_user_sig), providing clear context. However, it does not specify scenarios where this tool should not be used or alternatives.

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