Get data contract

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return type (data shape + render states) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. For a read operation, basic transparency is lacking.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence fragment—but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is not verbose, but the conciseness does not aid understanding.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide richer context. It does not explain what a 'data contract' is, the format of the response, or how render states are represented. The tool has only one parameter, so more detail is expected.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'id' parameter. The agent has no clue what the ID refers to (e.g., component ID, element ID). The description fails to add any value beyond the schema.

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 indicates the tool returns the data shape and required render states for a component. Although it lacks a verb, the tool name 'get_data_contract' implies retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_component' by focusing on the contract rather than the component itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_component' or 'list_components'. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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