goplus_approval_security

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'risky' means, what the output format is, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a security analysis 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Check token approval security') and then provides a brief elaboration. Every word adds value, and there is 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?

While the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, boolean, list of vulnerabilities). This is particularly problematic because the description says 'analyze if... risky' but does not explain the output structure, leaving the agent without critical information for interpreting results.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (chainId and contractAddress) with 100% coverage. The description adds the concept of 'approved spender contracts' but does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond what the schema conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: checking token approval security and analyzing whether approved spender contracts are risky. The verb 'check' and the resource 'token approval security' are specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'check_approval_risks' or other approval-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicitly name alternative tools. The intended use case is only implied by the description's phrasing.

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