effective_family_view

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' weakly implies a read operation, and 'append-only' describes the view's nature rather than the operation's behavior. There is no explicit statement that the call is side-effect-free, no failure/side-effect context, and no explanation of how conflicts are resolved.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the verb and object, then lists the key output categories. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 covers return structure and the description names the major result categories, so the return side is adequately addressed. However, with no annotations and no usage or parameter guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke this tool among many sibling view/query tools.

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 has zero description coverage for the single parameter, and the description never directly explains family_id. The phrase 'contract-family view' is a weak clue connecting family_id to the family domain, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage with format, provenance, or constraint details.

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 ('Return') and names a precise resource ('effective append-only contract-family view'), then enumerates the main output categories: supersession, relations, and conflicts. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling read/view tools such as graph, resolve, or project_overview.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent is not told how this view differs from sibling tools like graph, resolve, or project_overview, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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