exchange_list_mail_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List mail contacts' only weakly implies a read-only operation and does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or whether all contacts are returned. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant wording. While it is terse, it effectively communicates the core action in three words, which is appropriate for the low parameter count.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide context. It fails to explain the optional resultSize parameter, return format, or distinctions from sibling list tools. Given the minimal schema, an agent may still be uncertain about expected behavior.

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%, and the description does not mention the resultSize parameter at all. The schema only provides a type of 'number', leaving the agent without any explanation of what resultSize controls, its default, or its maximum.

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 the resource 'mail contacts', which is a specific Exchange object type. Among sibling tools like exchange_list_mailboxes and exchange_list_mail_users, the resource term helps distinguish it, though it does not elaborate on scope or exact meaning of 'mail contacts'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as exchange_list_mail_users or exchange_list_distribution_groups. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, so the agent must rely only on naming conventions.

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