server_protocol_contract

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Describe' implies a read-only, informational operation and gives a reasonable safety signal, but the description never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects or what kind of response to expect. It also leaves 'native parity boundaries' undefined, so some behavioral context is missing.

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 with a clear verb and object, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately compact for an informational tool with no parameters.

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, read-only informational tool with an output schema, this description is adequate for basic selection and invocation. The main gap is that terms like 'client-visible' and 'native parity boundaries' are not elaborated, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the need for additional context.

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 schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not add parameter-level information, but none is needed; this is the baseline case for a zero-parameter tool.

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 clearly identifies a specific action and resource: 'Describe Ghost's client-visible MCP protocol contract and native parity boundaries.' This is not a tautology and communicates an informational tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling metadata/contract tools such as tool_contribution_contract or server_transport_diagnostics, so some inference is left to the agent.

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 guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as server_lifecycle_status, server_transport_diagnostics, or tool_contribution_contract. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Describe Ghost's... contract,' leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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