zetrix_contract_generate_advanced

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mandatory initialization dependency (critical behavioral constraint), error condition if workflow not followed, and mentions support for complex architectures. However, it doesn't specify performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The mandatory workflow instructions are clearly highlighted. While slightly dense, every sentence serves a purpose - no redundant information.

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 complex 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the mandatory workflow and architectural support. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (output format) or error handling beyond the initialization requirement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific context - it mentions using the same contractName from initialization and suggests outputDirectory format, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in 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 clearly states the tool generates advanced multi-class Zetrix smart contracts with specific components (interfaces, libraries, utilities, main contract, test specs). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on contract generation rather than querying, testing, or transaction submission.

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 provides explicit workflow instructions: (1) first call zetrix_contract_init_dev_environment with contractName, (2) then call this tool with the same contractName and specific outputDirectory. It explicitly warns that calling without initialization will cause an error, and mentions support for complex architectures.

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