contract_baseline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists the possible actions (save, load, etc.) but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior of save, irreversibility of delete) or authorization requirements. The description conveys basic operations 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 concise, using a single sentence to list all actions and context. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be structured with bullet points for clarity, but remains efficient overall.

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 tool has multiple actions but no output schema, and the description fails to mention what each action returns (e.g., compare returns drift, list returns baselines). It also does not clarify that contracts parameter is only needed for save/compare, which could lead to misuse. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., action enum values or contracts field usage). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 manages consumer contract baselines with specific actions (save, load, compare, list, delete) and mentions integration with contract_guard, distinguishing it from sibling tools like contract and contract_guard.

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 indicates it should be used with contract_guard for API change versioning, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, which is acceptable as no direct sibling exists for baseline management.

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