Get Contract Summary

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a useful behavioral note about requiring project context and describes the kind of summary returned, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, data freshness, or how the summary is computed.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and then adding the key output metrics and the project context requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only summary tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the call returns. It could be more complete by stating the format or granularity of the coverage summary, but the current content is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter as 'Public ID (GUID) of the test suite' with 100% coverage. The description references the test suite but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the operation: getting a contract test coverage summary for a test suite, listing the key metrics returned. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_contract_drift or get_test_suite, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires project context,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explain when to use this versus get_contract_drift, get_schema_drift_report, or get_test_results.

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