beacon_gas_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation (deposit) and relates to messaging functionality. However, it does not disclose the admin_key authorization requirement, reversibility, failure modes, or side effects beyond increasing balance. The description gives basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a brief paragraph. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and purpose.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and two required parameters, the description covers the core idea and usage context for depositing gas. It explains why gas is needed (messaging). However, it could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites like having an agent registered or what happens after deposit (e.g., balance update confirmation). Still, it is largely adequate.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters (agent_id, amount_rtc, admin_key) are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply mentioning 'deposit RTC to your agent's gas balance.' This meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Deposit RTC gas for Beacon messaging.' It uses a specific verb ('deposit') and resource ('RTC gas'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like beacon_gas_balance (check balance) and beacon_send_message (send messages).

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 explains that gas powers agent-to-agent communication and that depositing RTC adds to the agent's gas balance for sending messages. This provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., checking balance), which would improve clarity further.

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