api_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the contract is value-free and reflects what has been observed so far, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not state read-only behavior, freshness, coverage limits, or what happens if no contract has been observed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core resource description is front-loaded and the folding instruction follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and zero parameters keep the schema burden low. However, the description remains thin on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools and does not clarify how the observed contract relates to compile_spec or review_spec workflows.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, though it references target_options.api_templates as external configuration context.

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 identifies a specific resource — the observed backend API contract — and enumerates contents: paths, methods, statuses, body shapes. It is clearer than the bare name, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as compile_spec or review_spec.

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?

It gives an instruction about folding data-bearing path segments using target_options.api_templates, but does not say when to call api_contract instead of alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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