cos_graph_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of enumeration (handler types) but does not disclose output format, filtering behavior, or potential performance implications. It provides some contextual value without contradicting 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and clearly states the resource. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to support full invocation. It does not clarify how the parameters work, what 'scope' means, when to set include_test_sources, or whether the output includes details beyond handler names. With 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. Parameter names (kinds, scope, include_test_sources) offer some hints, but values, defaults, and effects are undefined. For example, 'scope' defaults to 'all' but its possible values are not explained, and the interaction between 'kinds' and 'scope' is unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Enumerate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'every handler declared in the graph' with explicit handler types (HTTP / MCP / gRPC / events / WS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cos_graph_query or cos_graph_context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to other graph tools (e.g., cos_graph_entrypoints, cos_graph_search). An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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