dojo_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it provides 'guidance' but doesn't clarify what that means operationally - is it documentation retrieval, code generation, validation, or something else? It doesn't mention whether this tool performs any actions (like generating files), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what format the guidance comes in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose ('Detailed guidance on implementing token standards in Dojo'), and the second sentence provides specific usage contexts. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 tool has no parameters (empty schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool is for. However, it doesn't explain what form the 'guidance' takes or what the user can expect as a result. For a tool that presumably provides some kind of output (even if just informational), more detail about the nature of that output would improve completeness. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps in explaining the tool's behavior.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description focuses appropriately on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 'Detailed guidance on implementing token standards in Dojo' and lists specific use cases (ERC20, ERC721, ERC1155 tokens, implementing token functionality, integrating tokens with games). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on token implementation rather than general Dojo topics like configuration, logic, or testing. However, it doesn't specify the exact form of guidance (documentation, code generation, validation, etc.), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states 'Use this when creating ERC20, ERC721, or ERC1155 tokens, implementing token functionality, or integrating tokens with your Dojo game.' This provides clear context about when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools (like dojo_config or dojo_logic), which would be needed for a perfect score of 5.

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