list_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Introspection' and 'list' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation. It discloses the output content (versions and SHA-256) but doesn't explicitly state safety or side-effect absence, though the implication is strong.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what to expect: a list of contracts with versions and SHA-256 hashes.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 function: listing every tool contract version and its pinned SHA-256. The verb 'list' and resource 'contracts' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings like convert_units or create_workspace_handle.

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 begins with 'Introspection,' which conveys when to use it (for inspecting contracts) without needing explicit alternatives since no sibling does this. It provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it.

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