execution-run-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a transfer operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether this is irreversible, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits or fees, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. The description only covers basic parameter requirements.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and parameter requirements. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor deduction for slightly redundant parameter restatement that doesn't add significant value beyond the schema.

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 financial transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects: what happens after transfer (confirmation? transaction ID?), error conditions, security implications, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the full behavioral implications of invoking this tool.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it repeats the recipient format options and mentions the purpose is required, but doesn't provide additional context like example purposes or amount constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Transfer Shells to another wallet'), identifies the resource (Shells currency), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_balance (read-only) or sign (cryptographic operation). It provides a complete purpose statement with verb, resource, and target.

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 compute or get_transactions. While it mentions the required parameters, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance), appropriate contexts, or warnings about when not to use it (e.g., for non-Shell transfers).

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