contract_state

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that generations are immutable canonical and that physical paths are bindings not identity, but omits read-only confirmation, permission requirements, and error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no redundant text. The second sentence adds domain context and is not padding, though it is somewhat abstract.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves include_content behavior and contract_ref format unaddressed, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for contract_ref or include_content. Parameter names alone must carry all semantics.

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?

States a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'logical Contract' plus scope 'immutable canonical generations.' Distinguishes read from write siblings like register_contract, but does not name alternatives such as resolve or truth_at.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; no alternative tools named. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read.'

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