wdk_atomic_taker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It transparently describes the mutation effect ('whitelist', 'locks the HTLC') and the purpose, with no contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's usage, prerequisites, and effect. Minor gap: does not mention return value or error states, but this is acceptable for a step in a protocol.

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 100% but the description adds value beyond the schema's minimal description by explaining the parameter's role ('from kaleidoswap_atomic_init') and the necessity of its use.

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 identifies the tool as 'Step 2 of atomic swap' with a specific verb ('whitelist') and resource ('incoming HTLC on RLN node'), and explains its effect. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the atomic swap sequence.

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?

Explicitly states ordering requirements: 'Must be called with the swapstring from kaleidoswap_atomic_init BEFORE calling kaleidoswap_atomic_execute'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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