agentlux_claim_welcome_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two modes (virtual vs NFT minting) and the one-claim-per-wallet constraint. This is adequate for a non-destructive claim operation, though it could mention the result or post-claim state.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with no redundancy: verb and resource first, then optional parameters, then limitation. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple claim tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains modes, parameter dependencies, and constraints. Missing details about the result (e.g., item delivery) but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the two claim modes and the dependency between signature and timestamp. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'Claim' and specifies the resource as a 'free welcome pack of 5 avatar items'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like social actions or inventory management, which are unrelated.

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 explains when to use the tool (claim welcome pack) and provides conditional guidance: walletAddress alone for virtual claim, or with signature and timestamp for NFT minting. It also notes the one-time claim limit. No explicit when-not, but context is clear.

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