get_protocol_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all known application contracts' but provides no information about whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, pagination, response structure, or any side effects. The verb 'List' hints at safety but does not explicitly confirm it.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is sparse. It fails to explain what the returned data looks like (just IDs? full contract details?) or how this tool relates to siblings such as get_contract_role or identify_application. This leaves the agent uncertain about the output and follow-up actions.

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 covers the single parameter (protocolId) with a clear description and an example, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('known application contracts for an Algorand protocol'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_protocols or identify_application. It precisely indicates what the tool does.

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 the tool is used to retrieve contracts for a specific protocol, and the parameter name 'protocolId' clarifies the required input. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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