volkern_list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior beyond parameters, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List contacts') and adds qualifying details ('people or companies' and 'optional filters') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and list functionality. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation in a CRM context, more context on output format and constraints would be helpful.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters', which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics like filter combinations or search syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('contacts'), specifying they can be 'people or companies'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'volkern_get_contact' (single contact retrieval) and 'volkern_create_contact' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'volkern_list_leads'), which slightly reduces specificity.

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 usage context through 'optional filters', suggesting it's for browsing or searching contacts. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'volkern_get_contact' for single contacts or 'volkern_list_leads' for leads. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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