wave_design_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a contract file, validates against schema and acceptance-tests, and returns specific outputs (validator line, key counts, written path). It does not mention overwrite behavior or failure handling if validation fails, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the validation step and return values, earning its length.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, processing, validation, and return values. It could more clearly state what happens if validation fails or whether an existing output file is overwritten, but the essential context is present.

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%: both 'extract' and 'out' have meaningful descriptions and defaults in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 names a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('design-contract.json') plus the validation step, making the tool's function concrete. It also references an 'already-extracted pen-extract dir', which distinguishes it from extraction tools like wave_design_extract and check-only tools like wave_design_contract_check.

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 phrase 'already-extracted' clearly signals that this tool is meant to be used after wave_design_extract, giving useful positional context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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