contract_check

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 never says whether the check is read-only, what 'contract' means concretely, what a failure looks like, or whether it mutates/downgrades the file. Only the accepted input categories are disclosed.

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 the verb and resource first, then the enumeration. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical kind list carries most of the sentence's weight.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a 'check' returns (pass/fail verdict, diagnostics, exit condition) and the read-only nature of the call. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of invoking it.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema itself already enumerates 'kind' values and explains job_path ('for rows: the job they answer'). The description's kind list largely restates the schema's own description, adding no format, default, or constraint 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 specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('a file against its contract') and enumerates the accepted file kinds (probe job, rows, parts, digitizer sources/blueprint/partsmap). It is much more specific than a sibling like blueprint_check or gunkit_verify, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus blueprint_check, gunkit_verify, spec_validate, or gunkit_inspect, all of which sound like validation tools in the same family. The kind list implies usage but no condition, sequencing, or exclusion is stated.

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