get_derived_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is a recursive tree, and that max_depth can limit recursion, with a truncated flag returned if exceeded. No additional behavioral traits like permissions or performance are mentioned, but core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 description covers the main behavior (recursive tree, depth limit) and output format (truncated flag). Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly contrast with the upward traversal sibling for extra clarity, but is already sufficient.

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 describes parameters (path, max_depth, contract_key) with descriptions. The description adds the note about max_depth limiting and a truncated flag, which goes beyond the schema. However, coverage is sufficient for understanding, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 the tool gets all contracts that inherit from a specific contract (downward traversal). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_inherited_contracts' which likely does upward traversal, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: finding implementations, impact analysis, discovering variants. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of siblings implies when not to use (e.g., when looking for parent contracts).

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