get_a11y_contract

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output contents (roles, interactions, etc.) but does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The claim of 'highest-signal payload' adds some context but not exhaustive transparency.

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 two concise sentences. The first lists the output contents, the second states the use-case. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and why it is useful. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for invalid primitive names, but overall adequate given low complexity.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 retrieves the accessibility contract for a primitive, listing specific elements like roles and keyboard interactions. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get_primitive' (which likely returns full primitive details) and 'list_primitives' by emphasizing it provides 'just the accessibility contract' and is the 'highest-signal payload' for accessibility wiring.

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 usage context ('when wiring a component accessibly') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It lacks direct comparisons or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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