inspect_contract_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds that it inspects 'verified contract's source code or metadata', which implies a read operation consistent with annotations, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'verified' entails.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't fully address sibling tool differentiation or usage context, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'source code or metadata' and implies conditional behavior with 'file_name', adding some context, but doesn't provide extra semantic details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 action ('inspects') and resource ('verified contract's source code or metadata'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contract_abi' or 'read_contract', which might have overlapping functionality with smart contracts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_contract_abi' or 'read_contract'. It mentions the conditional behavior with 'file_name' but doesn't explain broader context or prerequisites for inspecting verified contracts.

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