zetrix_contract_get_structure_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' a guide, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns static or dynamic content, has rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get guide') and specifies the scope ('how to structure Zetrix smart contracts with ES5 patterns, classes, and inheritance'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, which would be beneficial for a tool with no structured data to rely on, making it minimally complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'guide on how to structure Zetrix smart contracts', specifying it covers ES5 patterns, classes, and inheritance. It distinguishes from siblings like zetrix_contract_get_testing_guide by focusing on structure rather than testing or other aspects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for structuring smart contracts with ES5 patterns, which suggests it's for developers needing guidance on contract design. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings like zetrix_contract_generate_advanced, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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