get_sync_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: an unknown major produces unsupported_contract rather than being leniently parsed. This is genuinely useful beyond the annotation.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the return contract contents and ending with the negotiation caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a decent job naming the high-level return fields and the main failure mode. Still, it leaves gaps: workspaceId semantics, contractVersion format, and representation of stream head/epoch are unspecified, so an agent may still need to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate. contractVersion gets real semantics: it negotiates and can be refused. However, workspaceId is not described at all, and the expected format for contractVersion is not specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and a specific resource ('till-sync publish contract for this workspace'), and enumerates the fields returned: contract majors, publishing status, stream head/epoch, and sole-writer posture. It does not explicitly name sibling sync tools, so differentiation is clear by content but not by explicit contrast.

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 gives one usage instruction: pass contractVersion to negotiate, and warns that unknown majors are refused rather than best-effort parsed. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over sibling tools like sync_stream_status, sync_stream_read, or sync_publish_enable/disable.

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