tentra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists contracts but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are paginated or formatted, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all contracts in a workspace') and adds necessary detail about optional filtering. There's zero waste—every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of contracts. It doesn't explain what a 'contract' is in this context, what fields are returned, or how to interpret results. For a read operation with potential complexity, more context is needed.

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 both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the optional filtering by kind, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contracts'), and specifies the scope ('in a workspace'). It distinguishes the filtering capability by contract kind, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_contract' or 'bind_contract' beyond the 'list' action.

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 usage for listing contracts with optional filtering by kind, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'record_contract' (which appears to be a sibling tool). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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