Contract Testing: Get Provider States

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this — no note on what 'states' contain, whether an unknown provider returns an empty list or an error, or pagination behavior.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the parameter block and toolset line duplicate the input schema and title, adding length without adding information. Roughly half the text is redundant.

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?

Return-value explanation is unnecessary because an output schema exists, and the three parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains missing — when to choose this tool over its siblings and what a provider state represents — is a real but modest gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list is a verbatim restatement of the schema (provider, pageNumber default 1, pageSize default 5) and adds no format hints, name-resolution rules, or guidance on when to page.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Retrieve the states of a specific provider'), which is clearer than a tautology, but 'states' is Pact-specific jargon left unexplained and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as contract-testing_get_pacticipant or contract-testing_get_pacts_for_verification. An agent must already know the Pact domain to interpret the purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. is a provider 'name' required to already exist?), and no named alternative among the many contract-testing siblings. The 'Toolset: Fetch Provider States' line is a label, not usage guidance.

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