Inspect reviewed native contract

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful limitations by calling the result a 'field subset' and not a permission proof, but it does not describe return format, scope of omitted data, or authorization requirements.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. It is compact and front-loads the main content, though the first sentence is a terse noun fragment rather than a clear action statement.

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 schema-inspection tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level list of returned categories and a limitation disclaimer. It omits usage guidance, parameter meaning, and return-value detail, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required 'operation' parameter or how to choose among its many enum values. The enum itself supplies valid values, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond that.

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 the resource as a reviewed native contract with method/path, fields, scopes, and provenance. It is clear enough to separate this metadata-lookup tool from the sibling operation tools, though it does not explicitly say it retrieves a contract for a supplied operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus invoking a sibling operation tool. The disclaimer 'not an official OpenAPI document or permission proof' is a caveat, not usage direction.

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