stellar_contract_optimize

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. 'Optimize' implies a transformation that likely writes an output file, but the description does not state whether files are modified in place, what defaults apply, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions or prerequisites are needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for its length, though it could be considered under-specified rather than optimally sized for a mutating file operation.

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 that this appears to be a transformation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is too thin. It omits critical behavioral context such as what optimization entails, whether it modifies originals, how output paths are handled, and when in a contract workflow it should be invoked.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents both parameters, including the default output suffix for wasm_out. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Optimize') and resource ('WASM files'), and adds the deployment context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like stellar_contract_build or stellar_contract_deploy, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'for deployment' implies a workflow context but does not specify when optimization is required or how it relates to build/deploy steps.

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