design_contract_validate

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral context: normalization and validation for deterministic generation. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or what validation entails, leaving significant gaps.

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 of 8 words, with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 having an output schema, the description omits critical details about normalization rules, validation criteria, and return behavior. For a validation tool, this incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage.

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 input schema has one parameter 'contract' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the expected structure, format, or constraints of the contract, adding no value beyond 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 clearly states it normalizes and validates a DesignContract for deterministic generation, using specific verbs and a distinct resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like design_contract_draft (drafting) and drawing_* (drawings).

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 implies usage when a DesignContract needs validation, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or contextual hints are provided.

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