analyze_contract

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it returns findings with severity and links to knowledge base entries, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single focused paragraph: it leads with purpose, enumerates specific checks, and ends with output format. Every sentence is valuable and efficiently conveys necessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the output structure (findings with severity and links). Parameters are fully documented in the input schema, and the tool's purpose is fully explained without gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Analyze Klever smart contract Rust source code for common issues' and lists specific checks (missing imports, macros, endpoint annotations, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy_sc or invoke_sc.

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 indicates this tool is for analyzing source code for common issues, implying use before deployment or to check code quality. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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