Contract Testing: Get Pacticipant Network

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, so the description does not need to add safety info. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like the format of the network graph or error handling, leaving some ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter listing is redundant with the schema, but overall it is efficient. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description is minimal but adequate for a simple read tool. However, it lacks information about the return format of the network graph, assuming the agent knows what an integration network graph is. With no output schema, this info would be valuable.

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 single parameter pacticipantName is fully described in the schema with the same text as in the description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves the integration network graph for a specific pacticipant. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title 'Get Pacticipant Network' distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_pacticipant or contract-testing_get_pacticipant_label.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, best practices, or when not to use it. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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