audit_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but 'Return a checklist' clearly indicates a read-only informational behavior with no apparent side effects. However, it does not clarify whether the checklist is static or dynamically generated, or whether it performs any analysis of a provided contract.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'practical', 'smart contract security checklist', and 'NEAR-specific' all convey meaningful scope.

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?

For a simple static checklist tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the core behavior but misses the language-parameter nuance and does not position the tool relative to its siblings. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a fully informed call.

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 one optional language parameter with an enum and default, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions language. It does not compensate by explaining how the language value affects the returned checklist, leaving the connection between parameter and behavior implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('a practical smart contract security checklist with NEAR-specific items'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like scan_contract and compare_security_models, which imply analysis/comparison rather than a checklist.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus scan_contract or compare_security_models. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where an alternative would be better.

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