evaluate_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key conditional behavior: green advances to awaiting_acceptor, otherwise repair is dispatched. But it omits side effects, permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, and what a dispatched repair entails.

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 very concise and front-loads the action, followed by a compact conditional outcome. However, the term 'green' is somewhat jargon-heavy, and the extreme brevity sacrifices some clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide essential context for a mutation-like workflow tool: what the objective gate evaluates, what triggers repair, who is allowed to call this, and how the required parameters relate to the gate. This is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of contract_id, actor_id, actor_role, or base_revision. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter details, leaving agents to guess the role of base_revision and the meaning of actor_role.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Run the objective gate') and clarifies that it is an evaluation step that routes to awaiting_acceptor or repair. It is distinct from sibling tools like accept_contract and reject_contract because it describes a gate, not a terminal decision, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 when the tool applies: it is the objective gate before a contract can move to awaiting_acceptor. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as reject_contract, waive_deviation, or accept_contract.

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