get_contract_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Highlights' and 'suggests checks' imply a read-only analysis, but the description does not clarify whether it reads the working tree, executes git commands, requires a certain state, or produces actionable recommendations. This is a significant transparency gap for an analysis tool with no annotation safeguards.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the core action and output type efficiently, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite the tool having seven parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related siblings, the description explains almost nothing about how the tool behaves, how inputs like diff versus files are used, what 'checks' are suggested, or what an agent should do with the result. This is well below what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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%, and all seven parameters have descriptive schema entries. The description adds the 'contract/API' framing but no parameter-level detail, so it does not meaningfully compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it highlights contract/API impacts and suggests checks. This helps distinguish it from generic siblings like get_impact and get_impact_from_diff by focusing on contract/API concerns, though it does not explicitly mention the diff/files input that triggers the analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as get_impact, get_impact_from_diff, or chain_effect_checklist. The description does not state prerequisites, preferred input modes, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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