Get the Relational IP radar shape for a demo contact: five axes, each a Red/Yellow/Green status plus a normalized 0–1 position for rendering the widget. Intentionally returns no numeric score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | Yes | Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns a radar shape with statuses and positions, and intentionally omits a numeric score. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior, so transparency is partial.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the primary action and key output characteristics. Every element earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure and core intent. It lacks elaboration on domain terms like 'Relational IP', but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The schema provides a full description for the single 'contact' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information, 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 clearly defines the tool as retrieving a radar shape for a demo contact, with specific structural details (five axes, statuses, positions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_contact_profile, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a demo contact' implies a scope, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct: list_demo_contacts retrieves the book of business, get_contact_profile provides the full profile, get_radar returns the radar widget data, draft_as generates outreach, and demo_temperature_check is an interactive walkthrough. However, brief_me and get_contact_profile both include summaries and cadence notes, which could cause initial confusion even though brief_me is specifically for pre-interaction prep.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but the verb conventions vary: get_ and list_ are used for retrieval, while brief_me, draft_as, and demo_temperature_check use imperative or verb-particle forms. This is not chaotic, but lacks a uniform verb_noun pattern.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a demo application. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the demo workflow—listing contacts, viewing profiles, inspecting radar graphs, generating briefs, drafting messages, and simulating temperature checks—without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set thoroughly covers the core capabilities of the Centric demo: viewing contact lists, profiles, radar visualizations, interactive briefs, drafting, and temperature check loops. The intentional demo-only nature (no send/update) means no obvious workflow dead ends exist for the stated purpose.