governance_get_role_prompt_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It notes the result is 'internal' and 'versioned', but it does not disclose possible errors (e.g., role not registered), authentication requirements, or confirm it is read-only beyond the verb 'Return'.

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, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description minimally covers the core behavior. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it merely adequate rather than fully self-sufficient 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?

The single parameter agent_id has no schema description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal context by implying a 'registered role', but it does not explain how agent_id maps to a role, its format, or how to obtain a valid value.

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 ('Return') and resource ('internal versioned prompt contract') plus a clear scope ('for one registered role'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like governance_get_role_manifest and governance_get_capabilities by focusing on the prompt contract specifically.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as governance_get_role_manifest or governance_get_capabilities. The description only states what it returns, without exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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