Assemble Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a bare 'Returns: Confirmation' line and says nothing about failure handling, file overwrite behavior, or validation of mismatched bodies/witnesses.

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 purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the Args block is pure duplication of a 100%-covered schema and does not earn its space. Moderate length overall with some redundancy.

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?

All three required parameters are documented and the operation is single-step, so an agent can call it. But the absence of pipeline context (how it relates to build/sign/submit) and any failure notes leaves gaps for a tool embedded in a multi-step transaction flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with the same wording the description uses. The description restates them verbatim, adding no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (assemble) and resource (transaction) and clarifies the two input sources (body + witness files), which is enough to tell it apart from build/sign/submit in principle. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent siblings cardano_transaction_build, cardano_transaction_sign, or cardano_transaction_witness.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no conditions or prerequisites. The description never tells the agent when assembly is needed versus signing or building, which matters in a pipeline with several transaction tools.

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