Sweep reserves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Admin:' which hints at permission requirements, but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., permanently moving reserves), what happens to the swept reserves, any rate limits, authentication needs beyond admin status, or the expected outcome. For a tool with no annotations and likely significant impact (given 'sweep' and admin context), this is a substantial gap.

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 extremely concise with just two words ('Admin: sweep protocol reserves.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes meaning (indicating admin role and action), making it efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted 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 implied by 'sweep' (likely a significant admin action), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a lending context with many alternatives, this minimal description is inadequate to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 has 1 parameter ('amount') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details on what 'amount' represents. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'amount' refers to (e.g., a numeric value, token amount, or percentage), its format, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented and ambiguous for an AI agent.

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 tool is for 'sweep protocol reserves' and identifies it as an admin action, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'sweep' entails (e.g., transferring, collecting, or redistributing reserves) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.withdraw-liquidity' or 'strato.lending.liquidate', which might involve similar reserve-related operations. The description lacks specificity about the resource being acted upon beyond 'reserves'.

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 includes 'Admin:' which implies this tool requires administrative privileges, offering some contextual guidance. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to other lending tools like 'strato.lending.withdraw-liquidity'), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage context is implied but not elaborated, leaving gaps for an AI agent to determine applicability.

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