generate_contract_template

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states generation from templates without disclosing side effects, customization behaviors, or whether it saves the contract. The description is too shallow for a generation tool.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff, though it could benefit from a short example to improve readability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., the contract text or a file). For a generation tool, this is a critical gap. The description is too brief for the complexity involved (nested parameters, multiple templates).

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 covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. Description adds 'common use cases' which mirrors the enum, but does not explain how 'custom_parameters' interact with 'template_type' or provide extra nuance beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool generates contracts from predefined templates and lists specific use cases (DAO governance, content moderation, sentiment tracking), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_intelligent_contract' that likely create custom contracts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from all siblings.

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 use when wanting a template-based contract for listed use cases, but provides no when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool guidance. The lack of context for alternatives like 'generate_intelligent_contract' limits helpfulness.

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