wrike_get_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it adds no additional context about response structure, field inclusion, or any limitations. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), so the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not explain what 'fields' controls or what the response contains, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, providing baseline credit. The description adds a small amount of meaning by linking 'by ID' to the contactId parameter, but it does not elaborate on the 'fields' parameter beyond what the schema already says. No extra clarity is provided.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('contact/user'), and a clear lookup scope ('by ID'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like wrike_list_contacts (which lists) and wrike_update_contact (which modifies).

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 the tool should be used when you have a specific contact ID and need that contact's details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like listing contacts first. Usage is implied but not directly stated.

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