contract_guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, saves data, or has destructive effects. The note about temporary integration is not relevant behavioral info.

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 relatively concise but includes an implementation detail ('先做进现有 MCP，后续再剥离') that is not helpful for tool selection. The purpose is front-loaded, but the note reduces efficiency.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return values, side effects, and how contracts are stored or used. The concept of 'baseline' is mentioned but not explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions. It fails to clarify parameter interactions (e.g., when both endpoints and fromNetwork are set).

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's purpose: automatically extract field structure from frontend API responses to generate consumer contracts and prevent backend API drift. It specifies the resources (API responses, consumer contracts) and mentions two sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'contract' or 'contract_baseline'.

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 mentions two sources (direct endpoint calls or network logs) but provides no guidance on when to use each, nor does it contrast with alternative contract tools. This leaves the agent without clear usage criteria.

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