waro_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Introspect' and 'list all' imply read-only, non-mutating behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention auth assumptions, error/failure behavior, or what exactly the returned contract data looks like.

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 one short sentence with no filler: it states the action, the target resource, and both behaviors. It is front-loaded and easy to process.

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 the tool's low complexity and a single optional parameter, the description covers the main decision points. It does not clearly describe the shape of the introspection output, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical; still, a tiny bit more info about accepted command values would round it out.

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 already documents the `command` parameter, and the description adds the key semantic distinction: omitting `command` lists all contracts, while providing it details one. The 'sales list' example gives a concrete hint, though it leaves the full set of valid command values and their exact formatting unclear.

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 gives a specific verb ('Introspect'), a clear resource ('API contracts'), and the two supported modes (list all, detail one). It clearly positions the tool as discovery/meta-level introspection, which distinguishes it from the data/analytics siblings.

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 intended use is reasonably implied: use it when you need to discover available Waro tools/contracts or inspect one in detail. However, it never explicitly says when to use it over similar-looking introspection siblings, and it offers no exclusions or context-sensitive guidance.

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