list-data-contracts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination (behavioral trait) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, ordering, or response structure. For a list tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence with 4 key elements (action, resource, version, pagination). It is maximally concise without sacrificing purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling list tools, the description does not explain return format, data contract semantics, or selection criteria among siblings. It is functional but not complete for uninitiated agents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; 'with pagination' aligns with before/after/limit but doesn't enhance them.

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 'List Data Contracts (OM 1.12+) with pagination' clearly states the action (list), resource (data contracts), version constraint, and pagination feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-data-contract-by-name (retrieve single) and validate-data-contract (validate).

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 for listing data contracts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-data-contract-by-name for single retrieval. It does not give when-not or alternative references, so usage context is only implied.

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