Contract Toolchain

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: 'Absence is reported per tool rather than as an overall failure, so a missing fuzzer never reads as "the contract is fine"'. This clarifies the output interpretation and is valuable context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral detail about per-tool absence reporting. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it reports and how absence is handled. The output schema handles return format details, so no further information is required.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description correctly avoids parameter details since none exist.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'which smart-contract tools are present and correctly identified.' It conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling like 'contract_static_scan' or 'code_audit', though the distinct focus on toolchain presence makes differentiation implicit.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference other tools like 'contract_static_scan' or 'code_audit' that might overlap. The context is absent.

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