view_worker_bond

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

No annotations provided, but the description explicitly states 'Read only, needs no wallet funds,' and thoroughly explains each returned field and its meaning. This fully discloses the behavioral traits of the tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, field details, note on read-only, and args. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output fields with clear explanations of each field's meaning.

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 input schema has only a title for 'worker_pk' and a default empty string, providing no meaning. The description adds crucial semantics: 'Optional worker pubkey hex. Defaults to your own key,' fully compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('worker's reputation bond on the Idios contract'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like view_worker_reputation by focusing on the bond aspect.

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 explicit guidance: 'With no argument, shows your own bond' and 'Pass a counterparty's worker pubkey to check theirs before creating a contract.' It explains the purpose of checking before contracting but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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