get_schema_contract

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the output format (Markdown) and content (stage discipline, integrity rules). While it could mention that the output is large or read-only, the current description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool with no side effects.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose and usage guidelines without redundancy. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core function, and the second provides clear guidance. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential: what it returns, in what format, and when to use it. It lacks an explicit note on the expected size or that it is a read operation, but these are implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with no inputs.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion. The schema coverage is 100%, leaving nothing to compensate.

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 the tool returns the full schema contract as Markdown, specifying 'stage discipline, integrity rules'. It also distinguishes from sibling get_schema_contract_summary by noting it provides the complete governance text, making the purpose concrete and differentiated.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer get_schema_contract_summary for a compact JSON view' and 'Not intended as the first step for routine lookups — use when you need the complete governance text or summary is insufficient.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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