get_flight_tool_contractsUse this when an agent needs to list the browser-local WebMCP tool contracts without executing or mutating a mission. Do not use it for real travel transactions or private data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| tools | Yes | ||
| lifecycle | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'without executing or mutating a mission' aligns with that safety profile. It adds useful scope context: 'browser-local' and the exclusion of 'real travel transactions or private data,' which go beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary instruction is front-loaded ('Use this when...'), followed immediately by a clear exclusion. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance.
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 zero-parameter tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It communicates purpose, scope, and exclusions clearly. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or avoid this tool is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully accounts for parameters and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'list the browser-local WebMCP tool contracts.' It also clarifies what the tool is not for ('Do not use it for real travel transactions or private data'), helping distinguish it from travel-related tools even without naming siblings directly.
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?
It gives a clear 'when to use' condition ('when an agent needs to list the browser-local WebMCP tool contracts') and an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion ('Do not use it for real travel transactions or private data'). It stops short of naming alternative tools for those excluded cases, so it misses the full alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct facet of the challenge—capabilities, tool contracts, safety model, and inventory—so an agent can select without ambiguity. The repetitive 'do not use for real travel' phrasing does not obscure the clear differentiation.
All four tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern with clear, domain-specific nouns. Naming is predictable and uniform.
Four tools is well-scoped for an informational challenge-orientation server. Each tool earns its place by covering a necessary aspect without redundancy.
The set fully covers the challenge's public boundary, available contracts, safety rules, and synthetic inventory. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose of describing the challenge environment.