scry_mint_with_check

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

No annotations, but description fully discloses collision detection tiers (exact-prefix and family-slug neighbors), the abandonment logic, and the consequence of stranded IDs polluting scry. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections and bullet points, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'stranded IDs pollute scry' could be integrated). Still efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists, description explains return structure (id, marker schema, tier-1/tier-2 collision info). Input parameters fully described. Sister tool context is provided. No gaps.

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 has 2 params with 0% coverage (no param descriptions in schema). Description adds significant meaning: explains kind values ('entry', 'anchor', 'bind') and prefix constraints (entry must contain dot, others must not). This compensates fully for schema lack.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a collision-free scry marker ID and augments with warnings. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling scry_mint by stating 'PREFERRED over raw scry_mint' and describing additional collision detection.

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?

Explicitly says 'PREFERRED over raw scry_mint', telling when to use this tool vs sibling. Also provides guidance on when to abandon the new ID (if tier-1 hit is same logical concept) to avoid stranded IDs.

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