describe_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a pure function, lists the contents of the summary, and specifies error behavior for ambiguous vault. It does not mention error handling for nonexistent contracts, but coverage is good.

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 paragraph with clear structure: purpose first, then output details, then parameter guideline. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, detailed output, usage conditions, and error cases. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only description tool.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: 'name' is a registered contract (with reference to registration tool) and 'vault' usage rules. This goes beyond the schema fields.

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 clearly states it returns the input JSON Schema and an auto-generated markdown summary for a contract, emphasizing it is a pure function that does not execute the contract. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like instantiate_contract.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to include or omit the 'vault' parameter based on single vs multi-vault setups, and describes the error case for ambiguous vault. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_brief).

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