fetch_astryx_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 'max 100 components per call' limit and the on-disk cache semantics, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or determinism of the returned contract, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then why it matters, then the limit. The anti-hallucination rationale is slightly redundant with the 'machine-readable source of truth' clause but still earns its place.

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 4-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both return modes (index with categories + import paths; props table with types, required flags, enum values) plus the batch limit and caching behavior. Only auth/permission context is missing, a minor gap given the local project-root nature of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all four params documented, including `components`, `refresh`, and `includeManifest`), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `components`-present/absent behavior already in the schema rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond it.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Fetch the authoritative Astryx component contract as JSON') and enumerates the two return shapes: the component index or the per-component props table. It does not name the adjacent siblings (probe_astryx, scan_components) so an agent must infer how it differs from those, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('use the enum values to avoid inventing props... generated code contains no hallucinated variants') and an implied mode rule ('when `components` is given' vs omit for the index). It stops short of explicit when-not or named alternatives, so no 5.

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