Начать перевод

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the mutation side-effects (approve + burn), the idempotency guarantee (duplicate protection with same key), the partial-pipeline nature (issuance is separate), and dryRun's no-transaction behavior. It doesn't describe return format details, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states core function, second covers the critical idempotencyKey requirement, third mentions dryRun. Front-loaded with the action verb. Slightly dense but efficient — could arguably be trimmed but remains tight and purposeful.

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?

This is a financially destructive operation (burning USDC) with 6 params and no output schema and no annotations. The description makes a solid effort: it covers the two-step pipeline, idempotency, and dryRun validation. It could add return-value expectations (transferId is mentioned) and clarify recipient semantics, but given the complexity and risk profile, it covers most essential operational context.

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 description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 params documented: dryRun and idempotencyKey), while from/to/amount/recipient lack schema descriptions. The description adds meaning for idempotencyKey (duplicate-protection) and dryRun (no-transaction check) beyond the schema, but the from/to/amount/recipient params remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving meaning gaps.

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 a specific verb+resource combination — 'performs approve and USDC burn in source network' — and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that issuance is done separately via bridge_status. It specifies the immediate return of transferId and the separate issuance flow, which effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs bridge_status ('issuance in target network is done separately via bridge_status'), mandates idempotencyKey usage to prevent duplication, and recommends dryRun for cost-free validation. This gives clear when/when-not and alternative guidance.

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