build_smart_contract_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. It mentions the tool 'returns all resources from move and management directories,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by usage guidance. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, though it could be slightly more precise in differentiating from siblings.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'returns all resources' entails or potential errors, making it incomplete for a tool that might involve complex operations like smart contract building.

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 doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.

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 states the tool 'builds an Aptos smart contract' and mentions it 'returns all resources from move and management directories,' which gives a vague purpose. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_dapp_on_aptos' or 'build_dapp_on_aptos_guidance_prompt,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this tool when you need guidance on how to build a smart contract for a dapp on Aptos,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'build_dapp_on_aptos,' which might overlap in functionality.

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