t2000_send

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses gasless for USDC/USDsui, gas required for SUI, and dryRun for preview without signing. It does not mention the irreversible nature of the send, which is a behavioral trait.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then details on units, asset, gas, and dryRun. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Tool has no output schema, and description does not mention return value (e.g., transaction hash) or error conditions (e.g., insufficient funds). However, the core send action is well covered with parameter details and behavioral notes.

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%, and description adds extra context beyond schema: clarifies amount units (1 USDC = $1), emphasizes asset required with no default, and explains dryRun purpose. This adds significant value.

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 specifies the tool sends USDC, USDsui, or SUI to various recipient types (0x address, SuiNS name, contact alias), distinguishing it from sibling tools like t2000_swap or t2000_pay.

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 guidance on when to use (send specific tokens), mentions gasless vs. gas-required, dryRun preview, and that asset is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for swapping), though sibling names imply alternatives.

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