read.asset_manager.intents

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

While annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable conditional behavior: it explains what happens when account_address or position_id are passed, including the return of compatibility rules for blocked intents. It also notes that position_id requires account_address. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's 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 three sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy: the first defines the core function, the second explains the optional enhancement, and the third clarifies the default behavior. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 three optional parameters and conditional behavior, the description fully covers the usage space and output expectations. It mentions the compatibility-rule detail and the catalog-only default. Since an output schema exists, return values are adequately documented elsewhere. The description does not need to mention return format or additional details, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the semantics by explaining the purpose of account_address (per-account availability with compatibility rules) and the effect of position_id (scope to one LP position). It also clarifies the default behavior when account_address is omitted, which adds meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's main function: 'List the automation intents Arcadia supports, with the parameters each one accepts.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies a distinct resource (automation intents) that separates it from sibling tools focused on accounts, pools, assets, and strategies. The conditional variants (with account_address, position_id) further clarify the exact scope of the operation.

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 clear context for when to use different parameter combinations: without account_address it returns the catalog only, with account_address it shows per-account availability and compatibility rules, and with position_id it scopes to one LP position. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is specific enough for an agent to decide correctly. Sibling tool names are available in context but not referenced in the description.

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