get_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the contracts are public, semver'd, and immutable in the sense that a field change becomes a version bump rather than an edit. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe what a caller receives, leaving some behavior to inference from the name.

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 short and front-loaded with the core resource: the JSON Schema for public shapes. The ADR-002 rationale earns its place by explaining why versioning is strict, which helps an agent understand the compatibility contract without adding noise.

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 an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what domain shapes are covered and why the versioning behavior matters. Minor ambiguity remains around whether the tool returns the current schema set or a specific version, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema keep this from being a significant gap.

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 the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 identifies a specific resource — the public, semver'd JSON Schema contracts for Record, Proof, Policy, and Event — and explains their purpose. The active verb is only implied by the tool name 'get_contracts', and it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_events or get_proof, though the content makes the distinction fairly clear.

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 use case is implied: another system can build on these published contracts. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It gives context but stops short of actionable routing guidance.

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