contract_schema

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's "This tool is read-only" adds no new information. It does add the workflow context (call before mutating response DTOs) and enumerates the returned content at a high level, but says nothing about output format, hash stability guarantees, or why idempotentHint is false for a no-arg read.

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, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage note. The only waste is the restatement of read-only behavior already carried by the annotations.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so at a summary level (contract, required fields, hash). For a simple zero-arg inspection tool, that is sufficient, though a hint about the response shape would close the remaining gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 names a specific resource and payload: the CLI/MCP compatibility contract, required response fields, and a stable schema hash. An agent can tell this is a schema-introspection read, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling contract_check, which sounds closely related.

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?

"Used before changing response DTOs" gives one concrete usage moment, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over contract_check or contract_check's complement, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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