contacts_get_all_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond a bare verb: it doesn't mention what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, or what constitutes a 'task'. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully elaborates on the annotations, so it provides minimal value.

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 short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior or scope. Every word is earned, but there are almost no words to earn.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'all Tasks' means—whether it includes completed tasks, the expected return structure, and how it differs from related tools like contacts_get_task or contacts_get_all_notes. The description provides almost no context, leaving an agent with insufficient information to select and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the contactId parameter is documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., required format, what the ID must reference). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds nothing extra, so the score remains at the baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('all Tasks'), but it is overly generic. It doesn't specify that tasks are for a specific contact (implied by the contactId parameter and the tool name), and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like contacts_get_task or contacts_get_all_notes. It's not a tautology, but it lacks the specific scope that would help an agent understand exactly what it retrieves.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like contacts_get_task, contacts_get_all_notes, and contacts_update_task that might be relevant, but no mention of selection criteria, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without guidance on routing.

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