Retrieve a read-only summary of run-contract artifacts for a HAI project by providing its project path. Inspect contract execution output without modifying project data.
Read-only summary of HAI Projek-Managment run-contract artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | No | ||
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee especially since no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose truncation behavior related to max_chars, access requirements, or failure behavior, so it only partially carries the transparency burden.
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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the read-only nature is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though additional useful guidance is missing elsewhere.
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?
The output schema may cover return shape, but the description leaves key selection and parameter semantics unstated. With a large sibling set and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, this is not enough for reliable invocation without further assumptions.
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% and the description does not explain project_path or max_chars beyond their names. 'project_path' is somewhat self-explanatory, but no description compensates for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
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 specific operation ('read-only summary') and a resource ('HAI Projek-Managment run-contract artifacts'), so an agent can infer the tool returns artifact summaries without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as hai_get_contract, but it is still substantially clearer than a vague or tautological description.
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 when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is provided. The description never mentions conditions for choosing hai_read_artifacts over hai_get_contract or other siblings, leaving the choice to inference despite the large sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.