tool_contribution_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Describe' implies a read-only, informational operation and no mutation, which is useful. However, it does not state what the tool actually returns, whether response_format alters the output, or if any restrictions or prerequisites apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes, but the brevity leaves out details that could have been conveyed in an additional sentence without harming 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?

For a simple, one-parameter documentation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the topic and implies an informational return. It is not complete, because it omits usage criteria and parameter semantics, but the low complexity and output schema prevent it from being wholly inadequate.

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 only parameter, response_format, is not mentioned or explained in the description, and the schema provides zero descriptive coverage. An agent cannot infer what values are valid or how response_format affects the returned contract.

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 states a specific informative verb ('Describe') and a concrete resource ('how Ghost tools can be contributed, discovered, and reviewed'). It is not tautological and an agent can tell this is a documentation/contract tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby discovery tools such as list_available_tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to invoke this tool instead of alternatives like list_available_tools, ghostrigger_list_mcp_tools, or get_knowledge_base. There is no when-not-to-use instruction or contextual trigger to help an agent route a user request correctly.

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