jactus_get_contract_schema

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

Discloses return contents (field names, types, descriptions, example code) and additional behavior (indicates simulation feasibility). With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it is thorough but could explicitly state it is read-only and has no side effects.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, followed by detailed return list, authority claim, and additional behavior. Parameter documentation is explicit and efficient. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (schema retrieval) and presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, return details, authority, simulation indicator, and parameter meaning. No gaps identified.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: specifies the parameter is an ACTUS contract type code and provides examples (PAM, LAM, SWPPV). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and provides necessary 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?

Clearly states 'Get required and optional parameters for a contract type' and elaborates on returns and purpose. Differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the authoritative source for contract parameters and linking to jactus_simulate_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?

Explicitly directs users to this tool as the authoritative source, advises against reading source code, and mentions it indicates simulation capability. Implicitly guides use before jactus_simulate_contract, but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like jactus_get_contract_info.

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