compute_create2_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a pure computation (deterministic address) and no on-chain interaction, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, does not deploy anything, or specify the output format (e.g., checksummed address). For a simple non-mutating tool, the description is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, with zero wasted words or redundant information. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter schema is comprehensive, but the description omits the return value format (the computed contract address). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least state that the output is the contract address and in what form (e.g., checksummed hex). Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap but prevents a higher score.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter context (e.g., salt encoding, hash format) beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear, so no penalty, but also no bonus for description-level parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the purpose: determining a deterministic contract address for CREATE2 deployment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_contract_address (which handles CREATE) and deploy_create2 (which actually deploys).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the factory address and init code hash before deployment, or differentiation from predict_create2_address. The description merely states what it does without any usage context.

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