Identifies standard contract clauses missing from a loaded document to highlight coverage gaps.
List standard clause types from the reference library that were NOT found in a loaded contract — useful for spotting gaps.
Args: doc_id: doc_id returned by load_contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation, and the parameter explanation indicates a prerequisite (loaded contract). However, it does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating or disclose any potential side effects or error behavior. It provides some context but not comprehensive transparency.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and the argument explanation in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: purpose and parameter meaning. It does not detail the output format (beyond implying a list) or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward operation. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the sole parameter doc_id as 'doc_id returned by load_contract,' adding provenance and usage context beyond the schema's type-only definition. This is exactly what the dimension expects.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('standard clause types from the reference library that were NOT found in a loaded contract'). It distinguishes from siblings like extract_clauses by focusing on what's missing rather than what's present. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 usage after loading a contract ('doc_id returned by load_contract') and notes it's 'useful for spotting gaps,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Guidance is present but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.