deso_js_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'guide' which implies informational/read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose whether it generates code, provides step-by-step instructions, or returns documentation. No mention of rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('complete guide to using the deso-js SDK'). It could be slightly more structured by separating key components, but it wastes no words and clearly communicates scope.

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 guidance tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of guidance is provided (e.g., code snippets, explanations, tutorials), how results are formatted, or what depth of information to expect. Users cannot predict the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly with enums and descriptions. The description mentions 'setup, authentication, and transactions' which aligns with some enum values in the 'topic' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'complete guide to using the deso-js SDK' covering specific areas like setup, authentication, and transactions. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SDK usage guidance rather than API exploration, debugging, or code generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deso_implementation_patterns' which might overlap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deso_api_explorer' or 'deso_debugging_guide'. It mentions the scope (setup, authentication, transactions) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the title alone.

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