eth_storage_slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the input structure and output format (decimal string and 0x hex word). It does not mention side effects, but as a compute-only tool, none are expected. The description is transparent about what inputs are needed and what outputs are produced.

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 somewhat lengthy but structured effectively with bullet-like sections. Every sentence adds value, though some redundant phrasing could be trimmed. Overall, it remains concise enough for quick parsing.

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 adequately explains return values (decimal string and 0x hex word). It covers the complexity of nested objects and different layout types. The description is complete for the tool's purpose, leaving no major 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning for all parameters. It does so extensively: it explains the 'layout' object structure, details the 'key' and 'index' parameters with their contexts, and mentions optional fields like 'key_type' and 'element_size'. This provides crucial semantic information beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: computing storage slots for mapping or array entries. It specifies the supported layout kinds (mapping, dynamic_array) and what it returns (decimal string and 0x hex word), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eth_hash or eth_selector which have different functions.

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 provides clear guidelines on when to use each layout type: mapping requires a key, dynamic_array requires an index. It also covers nested mappings and optional parameters like key_type and element_size. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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