Safety stake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Stake' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it's reversible, potential risks (e.g., lock-up periods), or effects on user balances. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 the complexity (a financial staking operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like return values, error conditions, or operational context, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'amount' parameter (e.g., format, units, constraints) or 'stakeSToken' (what it means, implications of true/false). Without this, parameters remain cryptic despite being required.

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 the action ('Stake') and target resource ('USDST into safety module'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'safety module' means or how this differs from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.safety-redeem' or 'strato.lending.safety-cooldown', leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple safety-related tools in the 'strato.lending' namespace (e.g., safety-redeem, safety-cooldown), the description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, offering no help for selection.

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