inspect_contract_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The verb 'Analyzes' suggests a read-only operation, and there is no mention of destructive actions. However, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it describe any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be in a git repo), or limitations (e.g., only detects certain types of changes). It is adequate but lacks explicit non-mutating assurance or additional behavioral 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and object, then provides clarifying details in parentheses. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description provides enough context for a simple inspection tool, but it could be more complete by referencing the sync workflow or sibling tools (e.g., 'run this before apply_sync'). Given the minimal complexity, the description is nearly complete for a standalone inspection tool, though it gains no additional context from annotations.

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 description adds no parameter details (which is appropriate). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is given for tools with no parameters. The description focuses on the action and outcome, and since there are no inputs, there is nothing missing.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyzes' and identifies a clear resource ('uncommitted changes') with a targeted outcome ('identify modified Contracts that require Sync'). This goes beyond a simple restatement and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like apply_sync, which likely applies the sync, and scan_project_files, which scans broader project files. The purpose is precisely scoped.

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 implies a use case (inspecting before syncing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_sync or scan_project_files. It mentions 'require Sync' as context but stops short of saying 'use this to detect changes before running apply_sync' or any exclusion criteria. There is a clear context but no direct guidance on alternative selection.

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