upstream_contracts

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that probeInstalled runs local --help probes and diffs them against declared contracts. It stops short of explaining the shape of the returned contracts, but the main side-effect behavior is disclosed.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the main purpose and then appends the conditional probe behavior. No filler or repetition; every phrase 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool, the description plus schema fully covers invocation: the cli enum is specified, the probe mode is explained, and there is no ambiguity about what is returned. The lack of an output schema means the agent won't know the exact return shape, but that is less critical for a simple retrieval call.

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 schema already documents cli filtering and the probeInstalled behavior. The description's mention of diffing restates the schema's 'compare advertised flags against the declared contract' without adding new parameter-level semantics.

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 states a concrete action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the gateway's declared provider CLI contracts'), and it is immediately distinguishable from installed-CLI drift tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of top-tier differentiation.

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 'with probeInstalled true' clause gives a clear contextual trigger for the probe/diff mode—detecting flag drift—and the schema adds the post-upgrade recommendation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as provider_subcommand_drift or when not to use this tool.

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