veto_api_contract

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the context of analyzing and generating/verifying contracts, but does not clarify whether files are modified, or other behavioral traits. It does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 the simple parameter set (2 params, enum) and annotations, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what the tool returns or produces (e.g., contract file or verification report).

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% and already describes both parameters (target enum, project_dir path). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 provides a specific verb-resource combination ('Analyzes API endpoints and generates/verifies API contracts') and mentions examples (OpenAPI, TypeScript types). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'veto_openapi_gen' which may have overlapping functionality.

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, such as when to choose 'generate' vs 'verify', or when to prefer sibling tools like 'veto_openapi_gen'. The description lacks when-not-to-use context.

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