Fullbleed agent contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the notion that the contract is 'canonical installed', i.e., reflects the live installation, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about size, pagination, or freshness beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler. The trailing enumeration of contents is long but each item carries information, so it stays on the right side of the conciseness line.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with full annotation coverage the safety profile is handled. Listing the contract's sections is enough for an agent to decide to call it; the only real gap is disambiguation from fullbleed_capabilities.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the argument surface.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (the canonical installed contract) and enumerates what that contract contains (version, commands, schemas, capabilities, profiles, examples, limitations, recommendation boundary). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling fullbleed_capabilities, which appears to cover a subset of the same content.

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 word 'canonical' implies this is the authoritative source to consult, which hints at when to use it. However, no alternative or condition is named — an agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this or the sibling fullbleed_capabilities first. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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