aries_scaffold

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 correctly identifies the tool as returning templates and includes a caution about them being unaudited. However, it does not disclose the output format or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what each scaffold does and warns about the code's nature. Missing details like output format (e.g., file content or URL) are minor given the simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for parameter descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining each enum value (wrap: mint frBTC protostone, etc.), adding meaningful context beyond the raw enum strings in 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 that the tool returns a scaffold/recipe and enumerates four specific types with brief explanations (wrap, unwrap, contract, orbital). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated operations.

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 implies usage for obtaining templates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include many other actions, but no comparative context is provided.

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