build_dapp_on_aptos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns all resources from move, management, and frontend directories,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if this is a generative, instructional, or retrieval tool. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'guidance' entails (e.g., step-by-step instructions vs. code snippets).

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 complexity (building a full-stack dApp) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't detail the format or depth of the returned 'guidance' or resources, which could leave the agent uncertain about behavioral outcomes.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no 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 tool's purpose: 'Build a complete full-stack Aptos dApp' with the specific action of returning resources from move, management, and frontend directories. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_smart_contract_on_aptos' and 'build_ui_frontend_on_aptos' by emphasizing 'complete full-stack' coverage, though it doesn't explicitly name these 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use it: 'when you need guidance on how to build a full-stack dapp on Aptos.' This gives clear context for usage, but it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or detail alternatives beyond the implied scope difference from sibling tools.

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