validate_remote_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 disclosing behavior. It does list the types of checks performed (runtime validation, rate limiting, etc.), which conveys the scope, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects. 'Audits' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and packs in six specific validation areas without unnecessary words. It is highly efficient.

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?

Contextual completeness is moderate: the description names the key validation areas but does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, or how the optional parameters influence the audit. However, the schema covers parameters, and the tool is relatively straightforward as a 'validate' operation, so it is minimally adequate but with gaps.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (limit, offset, max_scripts, remote_name), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'audits' and clearly identifies the resource ('remote contracts') along with six concrete validation dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like 'audit_lifecycle' or 'audit_performance' by focusing on remote contract specifics.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'sanity_check_script' or 'audit_lifecycle'. The description states what it does but does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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