analyze_contract_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Analyze' with no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, what output format to expect, whether any network calls are made, or any side effects. The description gives no behavioral context beyond the verb itself, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the action and the subject. While it could be slightly more descriptive, the structure is efficient and all the words contribute to the meaning, earning a 4 rather than a 5 because it lacks useful elaboration.

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 security analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain what 'dangerous permissions' means, what kind of results the agent should expect (e.g., list of risky functions, ownership details), or any caveats about supported networks. This leaves the agent under-informed about the tool's actual capabilities and return value.

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%, with both 'network' and 'contractAddress' having clear descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'contract' which aligns with the contractAddress parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Analyze') and resource ('a contract') with a clear focus on 'dangerous permissions and admin functions'. This makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from neighboring security analysis tools like analyze_token_security or check_approval_risks, so it misses the sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names. The phrase 'dangerous permissions' implies a security analysis use case, but that is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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