contract_check

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

The description restates the annotation ('This tool is read-only') rather than extending it, which is redundant given readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. It does add genuinely new behavioral information by disclosing the return shape ('pass/fail result plus warnings'), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what a failure implies or how to remediate.

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 the subject front-loaded and no filler. The only wasted clause is the redundant 'read-only' sentence, which duplicates structured annotation data.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only check the description is nearly sufficient, and it helpfully covers the missing output schema by naming the result type. It remains vague about scope (whole contract vs. one artifact) and gives no hint about what warnings mean or what to do next.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description incurs no obligation to document inputs. Nothing in the schema is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') plus the exact subject ('whether the current CLI/MCP compatibility contract is internally consistent'), which an agent can act on without opening a schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling contract_schema, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as contract_schema or the gates_check family. Usage is only implied by the verb 'check', leaving the agent to guess the triggering condition.

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