jev_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals that this is an informational reference table rather than a mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state that invoking the tool causes no side effects or describe the return format.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and then specifies the key information about sync direction. Every word contributes useful meaning and there is no redundancy.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and content well. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating what a caller receives upon invocation, but that is a minor gap for an informational reference tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adequately explains the tool's focus without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies a specific resource: the CSS↔Figma property table, and states the content it exposes (which direction each property syncs). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like jev_sync_now or jev_status, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 implies the tool is used to look up the supported property mapping and sync direction for the CSS↔Figma integration. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.

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