surety__slash_bond

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: ruling is required, no double payout, payout cap against bond balance (over-claims exhaust bond). It does not explicitly state if the operation is destructive or reversible, but the name and context imply mutation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and context (surety bonding + slashing). It then adds conditions concisely. At 2 sentences plus a prefix, it is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing the bracketed prefix.

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 provided. The description does not explain return value, success/error states, or side effects. For a 5-parameter tool, more completeness is needed to guide the AI on what to expect after invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'case id + content hash' mapping to ruling_case_id and ruling_hash, and implicitly bond_id and claim_id. However, it does not explain the 'upheld' boolean parameter (default true) or how 'payout caps' relates to input.

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 explicitly states 'Execute an arbitration ruling against a claim' with specific verb 'execute' and resources 'ruling' and 'claim'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'file_claim' and 'release_bond' by mentioning 'ruling-gated slashing' and 'payout caps'.

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 clearly states prerequisites: 'Requires the ruling's case id + content hash' and conditions: 'no ruling, no slash; a given ruling pays at most once'. It implies when to use (after arbitration ruling) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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