run_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=trueтные; the description adds value by explaining what contracts check and that evaluation is against the reference implementation. It does not contradict annotations or mention side effects, which is acceptable given the read-only hint.

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 tightly scoped sentences: the first states the action and result, the second clarifies the underlying test categories. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough behavioral context to invoke the tool correctly. It could slightly improve by addressing when to prefer this over sibling checking tools, but that gap is not critical.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with 'Full id or short alias.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('run'), a clear resource ('a component's scenarios and contracts'), and a concrete outcome ('report pass or fail'). It further distinguishes itself from validation/checking siblings by detailing what contracts verify (monotonicity, bounds, conservation, warning conditions against the reference implementation).

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?

The description implies the tool is for testing a component's scenarios and contracts)Skip. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over siblings like check_system or compare_with_wntr, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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