list_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only, hardware-free nature ('No hardware.') and what the listing contains, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether results are static bundled data versus dynamically discovered.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned fields, with the constraint ('No hardware.') placed last where it belongs. No filler.

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-param listing tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around what 'kinds' and 'capture adapter requirements' mean in practice.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List bundled contract templates') with an enumeration of returned fields (names, kinds, installed paths, capture adapter requirements). It is distinguishable from judge_contract, though the distinction is inferred from the verb rather than stated 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 trailing 'No hardware.' implicitly tells the agent this call is safe without a device attached, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. judge_contract) for the contrasting case.

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