design_contract_tests

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 indicates the tool returns a design output (non-destructive implied) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., interactions with Pact Broker), required permissions, or limitations. The optional pact_broker_url parameter hints at external calls, but this is not explained.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The output list is provided in the second sentence. However, the Portuguese language may reduce readability for English-only agents, and the structure could be improved with bullet points for quick scanning.

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 contract testing, the description provides a high-level overview of outputs but lacks details on how the tool processes inputs, assumptions about the environment, or what the returned structure looks like. No output schema exists, so the description should be more explicit about the format and usage of the output.

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% with concise parameter descriptions. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain relationships between parameters, expected formats, or how to structure the 'interactions' input effectively.

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 the tool's purpose: designing Consumer-Driven (Pact) contract tests between consumer and provider. It uses a specific verb ('Projeta') and lists concrete outputs (interaction structure, provider states, matchers, versioning, CI/CD integration), making it distinct from siblings like design_integration_tests.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., design_integration_tests) but the description does not differentiate them or provide context for appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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