wrike_list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention behaviors such as pagination, default inclusion of deleted users, or response format. This is insufficient for a listing tool without annotations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 relatively simple list tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return value or behavioral nuances like pagination, which would be expected given no output schema and no annotations. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves some context missing.

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%, so the schema already explains all four parameters (me, fields, deleted, metadata). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond that. Baseline 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 states 'List all contacts/users in the account', using a specific verb (list) and resource (contacts/users) with scope (in the account). This distinguishes it from sibling wrike_get_contact, which retrieves a single contact.

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?

No explicit instructions are given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the verb 'list' implies its use for retrieving all contacts, and the schema provides optional filters. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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