t2000_send

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description adds some behavioral context: dry run capability, limits, and that it sends USDC (implying a transaction). However, it does not disclose the full transactional impact (e.g., whether it auto-signs, if fees apply, or what happens on success). The description partially compensates for missing annotations but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that convey the core purpose, constraints, and a key optional feature. Every word is functional and contributes to understanding without 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?

For a straightforward send tool with good schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like balance requirements, which would be helpful for an agent. However, given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that 'amount' is in dollars and explaining the use of 'dryRun' to preview without signing. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, providing actionable context.

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 action ('send'), the specific asset ('USDC'), and the recipient types ('Sui address or contact name'). It accurately represents the tool's primary function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like t2000_pay or t2000_swap.

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 mentions limitations ('Subject to per-transaction and daily send limits') and the dryRun feature for previewing. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over similar sibling tools (e.g., t2000_pay), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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