stack_configureExternalContracts

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: writes to a file, adds entries for both local fork and mainnet chain IDs, lists bundled ABIs, and fallback to external fetch. It does not explicitly state whether it overwrites or appends, but the detail is commendable.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, making it scannable. While it could be slightly more concise, the examples and detail are warranted given the tool's complexity and the agent's need for precise guidance.

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 nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's operation comprehensively: file path, chain behavior, bundled ABIs, error handling for missing ABIs. It does not describe return values, which is acceptable.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior for 'chain', the automatic address lookup when not provided, and lists the available contract types for bundled ABIs. This helps agents construct correct inputs.

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 configures external contracts for the Scaffold-ETH debug UI by adding addresses and ABIs to a specific file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., stack_init, stack_install) which focus on project setup, while this is about adding external contract integrations.

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 a 'WHEN TO USE' section with concrete examples (token interactions, DeFi, DEX swaps) and mentions fallback behaviors for missing ABIs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical scenarios.

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