Contract Testing: Get Provider States

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), which already declare it a safe read operation. The description could mention that it returns a list of states or doesn't modify data, but it doesn't. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 main action. The 'Toolset' line is somewhat redundant with the title but does not significantly harm conciseness. It is efficient for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool in a specialized domain (contract testing), the description lacks crucial context about what 'states' are and how this tool fits into the workflow. No output schema is provided, and the description does not hint at the return type (e.g., list of state names). Given the simplicity, more completeness is expected.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'provider' that has a description identical to the tool's parameter description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Retrieve the states of a specific provider' with a specific verb and resource. The title adds 'Contract Testing' context, distinguishing it from non-contract tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other contract-testing retrieval tools. Still, it is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other state-related tools). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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