contract_validate

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the tool returns either the structured contract or validation errors, i.e. a dual success/failure shape. It stops short of describing error structure or file-format expectations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and result are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though it could pack one more clause of routing or format detail without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return behavior can be conveyed, and it does signal a dual contract-or-errors return. However, it omits error format, validation strictness, and any prerequisites, leaving meaningful gaps for a validation tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It implies the path points at a YAML contract file, which gives partial meaning, but does not clarify path form (relative/absolute) or expected file extension. Marginal added value over the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a data contract YAML file'. An agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as scan_file or repair_verify, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the validation entry point rather than scan_file or repair_verify.

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