codex_get_agent_contract

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

The description states the tool is 'passive' (indicating read-only behavior) but lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the agent guide is always available. With empty annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 action. However, it could include brief parameter guidance without losing conciseness. Currently, it omits essential parameter context.

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?

While the output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), the tool's three parameters are completely undocumented. The description's use cases ('full contract examples') do not link to parameter values, leaving the agent guessing. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about the three parameters (detail, client_type, include_examples). The agent cannot infer how to set these based on the description alone, which is a critical gap.

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 it reads a machine-readable agent guide for this MCP server. It specifies two distinct use cases: when tools/list metadata is unavailable or when full contract examples are needed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_get_runtime_capabilities.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('when tools/list metadata was unavailable or when a client wants the full contract examples') and mentions the next normal startup call (codex_health_summary). This provides clear context for usage.

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