alterios_validate_module_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions SVG download restrictions (disabled by default, capped when enabled) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like necessary permissions, side effects, or error handling. Adequate but incomplete.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide key usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the tool has 13 parameters with no descriptions and the description fails to explain their roles. The validation process, expected outcomes, and error conditions are not covered, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions 'module' and 'exact object IDs' in passing, leaving the other 11 parameters (including profile, view_id, project_id, etc.) unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 validates one complete module without a project-wide scan, distinguishing it from similar tools. The verb 'validate' and resource 'module' are specific, and the contrast with 'project-wide scan' differentiates from siblings like alterios_validate_form_contract.

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 gives two usage modes (offline check with module, live read with object IDs) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling validation tools. It lacks comparative guidance.

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