Withdraw pool liquidity

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. 'Withdraw from lending pool' implies a financial transaction that likely involves moving assets, but it doesn't specify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with potential monetary impact and no annotations, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Withdraw from lending pool.' It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. This is an example of effective brevity, though it sacrifices detail for conciseness.

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 withdrawal tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For such a tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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%, meaning parameters 'amount' and 'includeStakedMToken' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'amount' represents (e.g., token units, percentage), the format of 'amount' as a string, or what 'includeStakedMToken' does. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 'Withdraw from lending pool' clearly states the action (withdraw) and target (lending pool), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.withdraw-liquidity-all' or 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral', leaving the scope vague. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'liquidity' entails versus other withdrawal types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having deposited liquidity first), compare to 'withdraw-liquidity-all' for partial vs. full withdrawals, or indicate scenarios where it's appropriate. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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