Get the checks contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific return content (version and core checks) and the purpose ('what review must satisfy'), providing mild additional behavioral context beyond the 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 very short (two phrases) and front-loaded with the key information. However, the second phrase 'What review must satisfy' could be integrated more clearly. Minimal redundancy, but structure could be improved for readability.

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 there are no parameters, annotations are present, and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It covers the essential purpose and content. No major gaps, but could mention that it is a static contract definition.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, with 0 parameters, baseline is 4, which is appropriate as no additional param info is required.

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 tool retrieves 'the checks contract' including version and core checks (id/name/severity), and explains it defines what a review must satisfy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swarm_check_file or swarm_get_review, which operate on specific checks or reviews.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where this tool is preferred or why it should be called instead of swarm_get_review or swarm_check_file. The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

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