Contract Testing: Get User Preferences

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the preferences belong to the 'current user,' which clarifies auth-scoped behavior without requiring parameters.

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 highly concise: one clear opening sentence followed by minimal structured metadata. Every element is short and front-loaded, with no wasted prose or redundant explanation.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read operation, this description is complete. There is no output schema, but the tool's return value ('user preferences') is stated directly in the first sentence, and no hidden inputs or side effects are possible with an empty schema.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is complete. The description correctly states 'Parameters: None,' and no additional parameter meaning could be added. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'Retrieve the current user's preferences' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The 'current user' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling contract-testing_get_system_preferences, and 'preferences' distinguishes it from contract-testing_get_current_user.

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 intended use is implied by the zero-parameter read operation, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as contract-testing_get_system_preferences. It is adequate for a trivial getter, but it does not name exclusions or sibling routing.

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