sqo_api_contracts

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the output shape (a sub-350-token Contract Table plus OpenAPI 3.1 JSON) and the extraction scope (HTTP endpoints and path parameters). It does not say whether the result is returned inline or written to disk, whether the operation is read-only, what languages/frameworks it can parse, or what happens with large workspaces, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the output artifact and token budget. The leading marketing-style label ("Spec-Driven Backend-to-Frontend API Contract & OpenAPI 3.1 Extractor:") partly restates the tool name and title, but the substantive clause is efficient and wastes little.

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 single-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the description does convey the return artifact and its size constraint, which is the main thing an agent needs. Remaining unknowns (persistence of output, supported backend stacks, endpoint selection) are secondary for a tool of this complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already defining workspace as the "Backend workspace root directory." The description adds no meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it distills HTTP endpoints and path parameters from a backend workspace into a Contract Table plus OpenAPI 3.1 JSON. The scope (endpoint + path-parameter extraction, frontend-consumption focus) is specific enough to separate it from a plain route-listing tool, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase "so mobile/frontend agents never need to read backend controllers" implies the intended situation (a frontend/mobile agent needs backend API shape rather than source reading). There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as a routes or architecture tool, so usage is only implied.

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