escrow__describe_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'self-description', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or any prerequisites. The description is too vague to ensure safe invocation.

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 very short (one sentence with a prefix). It is concise but lacks structure. The prefix '[escrow — trustless escrow & settlement (exactly-once)]' adds context but is not formatted clearly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only says 'self-description', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the output. The tool is simple, but with many sibling describe_agent tools, more detail would help.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline is 4 as the schema coverage is 100%.

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 states 'Fleet-standard self-description', clearly indicating it describes the escrow agent/fleet. It distinguishes from sibling describe_agent tools by the '[escrow — trustless escrow & settlement]' prefix. However, it doesn't specify what the description contains (e.g., capabilities, status), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many other describe_agent tools for different fleets, but the description offers no context for selection.

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