granoflow_ai_agent_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' implies read-only, but no details are given about output format, pagination, or potential side effects. Minimal transparency is provided.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about what 'tool contracts' are and what the output will be. A more complete description would briefly describe the return value or format.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not contradict the schema.

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 'List Granoflow AI-agent tool contracts' has a clear verb ('List') and specifies a resource ('tool contracts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like granoflow_capabilities or granoflow_health. However, the term 'tool contracts' may not be self-explanatory to an agent unfamiliar with Granoflow, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparing with siblings like granoflow_capabilities or granoflow_task_list.

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