stellar_xdr_guess

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about how the guess is derived (heuristics vs 'certainty' threshold), whether the call is read-only, or what happens when no type matches — all significant gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (the guessed type, a confidence score, candidate types). Combined with 4 undocumented behaviors and no annotations, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema documents all four parameters including the channel and inputFormat enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about how 'certainty' or 'channel' affect the guess, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

It states a specific verb ('guess') and resource ('XDR type of given data'), so the action is identifiable. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like stellar_xdr_decode, stellar_xdr_types_list, or stellar_xdr_compare, leaving the 'guess vs decode' boundary 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when heuristic guessing is preferable to a deterministic decode.

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