audit_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: flags missing/inconsistent tokens, schemaVersion drift, prefix-ordering bugs, and outputs a 'BLOCK/PASS verdict', which enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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 sentences: first defines purpose with verb+resource, second adds specifics and verdict. No redundant words, efficient and front-loaded. Perfect conciseness.

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 output schema, the description mentions the 'BLOCK/PASS verdict', which gives a basic idea of return. It sufficiently explains the tool's function and parameters. However, it lacks detail on the format of the verdict (e.g., if it includes specifics of failures). For a moderate-complexity tool with nested objects, it is mostly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'contract_spec' includes token list, field set, and schemaVersionPattern, and that 'file_paths' are source files. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw field names, though it could be more explicit about parameter syntax.

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 uses specific verb 'verify' and clearly identifies the resource: wire contract across independent source files (iOS Swift, proxy JS, Android Kotlin). It also lists what it flags (missing tokens, schemaVersion drift, prefix-ordering bugs), distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like 'audit_api_contract' or 'audit_ios_a11y'.

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 use case: when needing to verify wire contract consistency across platforms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance for selection.

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