agirails_init

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only (false) and non-destructive (false). Description says it returns a snippet (read-like) but also mentions 'register agent on-chain,' which could imply mutation. However, the tool itself only generates code (non-destructive), and the description does not contradict annotations. It adds context about the generated code's role but could clarify that the tool does not perform the registration itself.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Essential information is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (returns a snippet for initialization), the description covers what it returns, why to use it, and the required action. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return value. It is complete for the tool's role.

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 has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (name described, network only enum). Description mentions 'agent name' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The network parameter's purpose (mainnet vs testnet) is not explained. Overall, description adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a TypeScript snippet for setting up AIP-13 keystore and registering an agent on-chain. It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'set up', 'register') and identifies the resource (init code). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like agirails_find_agents or agirails_pay.

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?

Description says 'Run the generated code first to get your agent address and start transacting,' implying this is a prerequisite for other actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or list alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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