merovingian_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or absence of side effects. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints on repository access. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return behavior.

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 concise: a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be integrated more elegantly. Overall, it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what data the tool returns (e.g., fields, structure). For a listing tool, understanding the return value is critical for agent planning. The description also omits context on pagination, sorting, or whether the list is exhaustive. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for fully informed 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%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic explanations for both parameters: repo_name is 'Name of the repository' and limit is 'Maximum number of versions to return (optional, default 50).' This adds value over the schema, particularly clarifying the default behavior for limit (though the schema has default null). However, it does not explain what 'versions' are or provide context on expected input format for repo_name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses the verb 'List' and the resource 'contract versions' with scope 'for a repository,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'merovingian_register' and 'merovingian_scan' by focusing on listing versions rather than registration or scanning. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'version' to fully differentiate from other listing tools like 'merovingian_consumers'.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for use, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'merovingian_audit' or 'merovingian_impact.' This lack of usage context forces the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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