t2000_send

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: gasless for USDC/USDsui, gas required for SUI, and dry-run capability. It also clarifies asset requirements and unit interpretation. Missing details on return values or error handling, but overall transparent for a send tool.

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 concise, with 3 sentences plus a command reference mirror. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides important nuances. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics, usage context, and key behaviors. It is almost complete, though a note on the return format (e.g., transaction hash) would enhance completeness.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that amount is in token units (1 USDC = $1), that asset is required with no default, and the effect of dryRun. This enriches the semantic understanding.

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), resources (USDC, USDsui, SUI), and recipients (0x Sui address or SuiNS name). It distinguishes the tool's function from siblings by specifying supported assets and recipient types, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: sending specific tokens to Sui addresses or names. It includes practical notes on gas requirements and dry-run functionality. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools like t2000_pay.

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