list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, what a 'contact link' represents, or what registration_token does. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the object and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits when to use it, what a contact link is, and the meaning of two undocumented optional parameters. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, more is required.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description mentions none of them explicitly. 'project' and 'agent' loosely map to project_key and agent_name, but the nullable format and registration_token parameters get no explanation anywhere, leaving them opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contact links') with scope ('for an agent in a project'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from contact-related siblings such as request_contact, respond_contact, or whois.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like request_contact, respond_contact, and set_contact_policy in the same family, the agent has no signal about which contact tool to pick. Usage is only implied by the name.

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