upstream_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical behavioral context: with probeInstalled, the tool runs local --help probes and compares them to declared contracts. This discloses potential side effects (executing shell commands) not captured by annotations, helping the agent understand the tool's full behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the optional behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description omits details about the return value format. It states 'Return the gateway's declared provider CLI contracts' but does not specify whether it returns a list, object, or how the diff output is structured. With no output schema, this lack of detail may leave the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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%, with both parameters having detailed descriptions (e.g., for probeInstalled: 'When true, run local --help probes...'). The tool's description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it restates the probeInstalled purpose but adds no additional semantic context for either parameter.

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 returns the gateway's declared provider CLI contracts, with an optional probe mode to detect drift. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('gateway's declared provider CLI contracts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like provider_subcommand_contract, which focus on subcommands.

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 a use case (checking contracts and detecting drift with probeInstalled) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like provider_subcommand_drift or provider_subcommands_list. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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