get_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read/export operation with no side effects, says nothing about permissions, size of output, or what the two formats contain beyond a one-word contrast (精简规范 vs 完整契约).

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the two format options immediately after. Efficient, though it is perhaps too terse for an unannotated tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be in the description, and the format semantics are covered. But with no annotations for a 1-param export tool, the description leaves gaps about what the contract contains and whether the call has any side effects.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the format property has no enum or description, so the definition is the only place that explains format=llm (condensed spec) vs format=json (full contract). That is meaningful added value beyond the schema, though it omits the default value and any constraints.

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 specific verb and object (导出契约 / export the contract) and explains the two formats, but never says what 'contract' actually is — schema contract, tool contract, or something else — so the purpose remains fuzzy. The sibling tools (validate_html, convert_html, ppt_*) offer no contrast to orient 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?

The description implies when to pick format=llm (condensed spec) vs format=json (full contract), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives explicitly, and the default (llm) is only visible in the schema.

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