giskard-oasis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that agent_id 'enables personalized response' and clarifies payment source semantics (Lightning vs ETH), but does not disclose what 'entering' entails (session creation, persistence, side effects) beyond the parameter context.

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?

Well front-loaded with the action ('Enter Giskard Oasis') followed by usage context. Parameter documentation is efficiently formatted as labeled lines. No redundant prose, though the parameter documentation block is lengthy it is necessary given schema deficiencies.

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?

Complete given the constraints: all parameters documented (compensating for empty schema), output schema exists (relieving need to describe return values), and sibling relationships acknowledged via parameter cross-references. Missing only explicit behavioral disclosure of side effects.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters: state (purpose/friction/confusion), payment_hash (Lightning source), tx_hash (ETH source), and agent_id (optional personalization). Each includes semantic context and source references.

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 'Enter[s] Giskard Oasis' with specific intent to 'Describe your current state' when 'blocking' or 'lost'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling invoice tools (get_invoice, get_arbitrum_invoice) by focusing on state description rather than payment generation.

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?

Implies clear usage context through 'what is blocking you, where you feel lost', indicating use during debugging or stuck states. Explicitly references sibling tools ('from get_invoice()', 'from Arbitrum payment') clarifying prerequisites, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

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