provider_subcommand_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the contract is 'read-only' and 'exactly one declared' subcommand, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what 'contract' entails beyond the term itself. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the added context is moderate.

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, tightly constructed sentence. It front-loads the core operation ('Return'), the object ('detailed read-only contract'), and the scope ('exactly one declared provider CLI subcommand') with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented parameters and strong safety annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The lack of an output schema means the return shape isn't documented, but 'detailed read-only contract' sets a reasonable expectation. Missing explicit error or edge-case guidance is a minor gap.

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 provider and commandPath have descriptions. The description adds a small amount of semantic context by tying the parameters to a 'declared provider CLI subcommand,' but it does not meaningfully extend the schema documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Return the detailed read-only contract for exactly one declared provider CLI subcommand.' It clearly states the operation, object, and scope. The 'exactly one' qualifier distinguishes it from list-style siblings like provider_subcommands_list, and 'declared' separates it from drift/contract-management tools.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need the contract for a single declared provider subcommand, identified by provider and commandPath. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing or drift checking, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than explicit. This lands just below the explicit-alternatives bar.

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