pylon_list_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Returns compact table', hinting at output format but omitting important traits like pagination (though schema has cursor), idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The minimal detail is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. While it could benefit from more structure, it is not verbose and conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it may be too terse for a complete understanding.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It mentions output format ('compact table') but does not cover pagination behavior, sorting, filtering, or response structure. A list tool needs more detail for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'cursor', providing clear meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The 'compact table' note is about output, not parameters.

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 'List contacts' clearly states the verb and resource. It is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing it from search tools by implying a full listing without filters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from pylon_search_contacts, which could serve similar use cases.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pylon_search_contacts. The description does not indicate prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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