surety__slash_bond

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: gating condition, idempotency (at most once), and payout cap. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., bond status updates) or error scenarios, but covers the essential behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The domain prefix in brackets provides context, and the core action and constraints are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and constraints adequately for a specialized surety tool. However, it could include more about return values or error handling (e.g., what happens if claim already slashed).

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains bond_id, claim_id, ruling_case_id, and ruling_hash from the description context. The 'upheld' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap for the agent to infer its role in executing the ruling.

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's action ('Execute an arbitration ruling against a claim') and the resources involved (bond, claim, ruling). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'file_claim' and 'release_bond' by focusing on slashing based on a ruling.

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 specifies prerequisites (requires ruling case id and hash from arbitration, no ruling no slash) and constraints (pays at most once, caps at bond balance). It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude cases like already-paid claims or exhausted bonds.

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