Withdraw max collateral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a withdrawal operation (implying a state change) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the withdrawn collateral, potential transaction costs, or how 'maximum available' is calculated (e.g., considering health factors, limits).

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 at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a financial transaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'maximum available' means operationally, doesn't mention return values or potential errors, and provides minimal context for a tool that presumably moves significant financial assets.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'for an asset' which corresponds to the single 'asset' parameter, giving it some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't specify what format the asset identifier should take (e.g., token address, symbol) or provide examples, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('withdraw maximum available collateral') and resource ('for an asset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral' (which presumably withdraws a specified amount rather than maximum), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral' or other lending operations. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for withdrawing maximum collateral versus partial amounts.

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