ada_contract_generate

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

The description discloses that the tool defines capabilities and trust level and WORM-seals the contract, but without annotations, it fails to provide deeper behavioral details such as side effects, reversibility, or required permissions.

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 concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key elements.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's function but lacks context about return values, storage, or relationship to sibling tools, limiting completeness.

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 60% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds that capabilities and trust level are defined in the contract, but does not explain agent_class or the meaning of enum values in trust_level or agent_class, leaving semantic gaps.

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 the tool generates an Ada-syntax sovereign governance contract for an agent, specifying permitted capabilities, trust level, and WORM-sealing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like worm_seal or sovereign_inject, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., worm_seal, sovereign_inject). The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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