contract_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the action (compile) and the output structure (mission, rules, etc.), implying a read-only operation without destructive effects. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but given the simple nature, the description adds sufficient context beyond the schema.

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: the first states the core purpose and output, the second gives parameter usage. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every sentence 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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the trigger (AGENTS.md), the processing (compile), and the output outline (structured contract with listed sections). It could explicitly state the return format, but the listed components imply what the contract contains, making it sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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 100% (path described as 'AGENTS.md path or project root'). The description enriches this by clarifying that 'path' accepts a file or directory and defaults to the current working directory, providing practical usage details not present in 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 uses a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('AGENTS.md operating manual') to state exactly what the tool does: transforms a file into a structured agent contract with enumerated components (mission, rules, responsibilities, gates, skills, out-of-scope). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like contract_verification or skills_list, which serve different purposes.

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 clear invocation context: 'Pass a file path or a project directory (defaults to the current working directory).' This tells the agent how to supply input and what the default is, so it can decide when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough to infer.

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