audit_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-assert non-mutation. It adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations by stating that it flags contracting and always returns a BLOCK/PASS verdict.

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 front-load the action and scope, describe the contract shape, enumerate the bug classes, and state the verdict output. No word is wasted and no structured field is redundantly repeated.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: inputs, purpose, anomalous cases, and the BLOCK/PASS verdict. The main gap is mode-specific behavior for contract_spec, such as the difference between tokens mode and envelope mode, but the tool remains invokable as described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that contract_spec represents token list/field set/schemaVersion and file_paths represents the N source files. However, it does not explain the mode enum tokens/envelope, the meaning and usage of schemaVersionPattern, or whether file_paths expects literal paths, globs, or directories.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: "Verify a wire contract ... is identical across N independent source files", lists the input families (token list / field set / schemaVersion), and enumerates the specific issue classes it detects. This clearly differentiates it from nearby audit tools like audit_api_contract, audit_parity, or audit_consistency.

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 intended use case is clear: cross-language wire contract consistency among iOS Swift, proxy JS, and Android Kotlin source files. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives, so it does not hit a 5, but the context is still concrete enough for an agent to decide when to select it.

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