contract_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns gates and instructs the agent to run them, which implies the agent needs to execute commands. However, it does not disclose whether the tool itself executes anything, whether there are side effects, or what happens if gates fail.

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 and every clause adds value: what the tool returns, what those returns consist of, and when/how to use them. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the usage timing, and the required action. It could be slightly richer about default path behavior or failure semantics, but it is arguably sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, as the 'path' parameter is described as 'AGENTS.md path or project root'. The description adds no parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return'), names the exact resource ('verification gates from a project's agent contract'), and elaborates what those gates are ('named checklists and shell commands'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like contract_load, which would handle contract loading, and decision_gate, which evaluates a decision.

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 gives a clear usage context: run these gates and confirm success before declaring a task complete. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before work is handed off' phrase and sibling names make the appropriate use case evident.

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