generate_deployment_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions script generation and network support, but omits details about side effects (e.g., creating files, writing to disk), permissions required, or whether the script is executed or just generated. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess risks.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features (network support and configuration). It avoids fluff but could benefit from slight restructuring or bullet points for readability. Overall concise and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and nested objects, the description is very brief. It does not explain return values (no output schema), how to use the generated script, or any constraints (e.g., file format, dependencies). For a generation tool, this lack of context hampers proper usage by an AI agent.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema (e.g., 'script_type', 'network_target', 'contract_path'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond summarizing 'configuration options'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 it generates deployment scripts for GenLayer contracts, specifying supported networks (localnet, studionet, testnet) and configuration options. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'generate_contract_template' or 'generate_intelligent_contract', which focus on other aspects.

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 when deployment scripts are needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The network and config mention gives some context, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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