bind_contract

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations: it refuses certain inputs (placeholders/compute_local) and only handles stamped contracts. This is useful context that annotations do not provide. No contradiction 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 zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the refusal condition is stated in a compact second sentence. It is exemplary in brevity.

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?

While an output schema exists (which may cover return values), the description fails to explain the purpose of any parameter, the meaning of 'stamped contract', or the expected input format. For a tool with five optional parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves agents under-equipped. The refusal condition is useful, but the absence of parameter semantics makes the tool contextually incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its five parameters (mode, path, scope, bucket, json_text), so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameter or its meaning. Agents receive no guidance on what values to provide, making correct invocation nearly impossible without external knowledge.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('stamped contract.hash'), and specifies a constraint that it only operates on stamped contracts and refuses placeholders/compute_local. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose and is unlikely to be confused with any sibling, which are unrelated (e.g., smoke_test_agent, diagnose_error).

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 explicit context on when to use the tool (to extract stamped contract.hash) and explicitly lists refusal conditions (placeholders/compute_local), which serves as a negative usage guideline. It does not name an alternative tool for those cases, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide against using this tool for disallowed inputs.

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