read_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Return' plus the document identity does imply a stateless, side-effect-free read and the content's nature (human-readable, not machine-parsed tokens), which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about size, whether content is static or generated, or whether the result is truncated — minor gaps for a read-only document fetch.

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 compact sentence with the resource name front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only document fetch with no output schema, the description gives the agent everything structurally necessary: the verb, the target file, and a note that the content is human-readable rather than machine-parseable. Only the absence of any output-shape hint keeps it below a 5.

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 declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call.

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 ('Return') and a named resource ('CONTRACT.md — human-readable token contract'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling read_* document tools (read_llm_txt, read_readme, read_theming), which share the same shape and would be equally plausible from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the read_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the filename, which for a document-fetch tool is reasonably self-evident but leaves the agent to infer when the token contract is the right document to consult.

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