Contract Testing: Check PactFlow AI Entitlements

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what it checks (entitlements, credit balance) and the diagnostic scenarios. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the type of issues it addresses.

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 and well-structured with a clear opening, a 'Toolset' label, and bullet-pointed use cases. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and when to invoke it. It provides sufficient context for a diagnostic tool, though it could optionally mention that it returns a credit balance or entitlement status.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information because there are none. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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's purpose: checking PactFlow AI entitlements and credit balance, specifically for diagnosing 401 errors and permission issues. The title and name are aligned. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI entitlements, a unique diagnostic function among many contract-testing tools.

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 provides five specific use cases that explicitly state when to use the tool (e.g., diagnosing 401 errors, checking credits). It gives clear context for usage but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, the sibling list implies this is for troubleshooting AI access issues only.

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