scry_mint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains collision detection and that the tool returns an ID and schema. However, it is unclear whether the tool modifies state (e.g., stores the marker) or if it is read-only. No mention of side effects, permissions, or destructive nature.

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 detailed but lengthy, including extensive field quality guidance (summary, tags, rationale, etc.) that could be separated. It is structured with sections (Args, Returns, etc.), which helps, but efficiency is moderate.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema described in text, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and usage constraints. Missing error handling and sibling differentiation, but otherwise complete for a minting tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains both parameters. 'kind' lists exact allowed values ('entry', 'anchor', 'bind') with examples. 'prefix' gives formatting rules per kind (dot required for entry, forbidden for anchor/bind). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 it generates a collision-free ID and returns marker schema, and is required before writing any @scry.* marker. It distinguishes its role from siblings like scry_mint_with_check, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 starts with 'REQUIRED before writing any @scry.* marker,' giving explicit when-to-use guidance. It also provides conditional behavior for tier1 collisions (abandon ID if same logical concept). However, it does not compare against scry_mint_with_check or state when not to use this tool.

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