get_service_contracts

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only states the categories of contracts returned. It says nothing about whether this reads the indexed graph or the filesystem, whether it fails when no index exists, whether direction filtering changes cost, or how large the result can get.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and a useful parenthetical enumerating the contract kinds. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase fragment leaves the action implicit.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch the return shape; the parenthetical does that loosely, and the schema covers all parameters. Missing are the prerequisites and the relationship between the direction filter and the returned categories.

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 meaning of serviceName, direction (with its 'ingress'/'egress'/'all' values and default), and workspacePath is already fully documented. The description adds only the phrase 'for a service', which contributes nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely (ingress/egress contracts) and enumerates what it covers (endpoints, RPC, publishers, subscribers), so an agent knows this is a contract-enumeration tool rather than a call-graph or impact tool. The verb is only implied by the tool name, and no sibling is named for contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. whether the workspace must be indexed), and no mention of alternatives such as trace_cross_service_flow or get_project_dependencies that an agent might otherwise pick. The agent must infer the selection rule entirely.

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