smokeball_get_layout_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs destructive, idempotency, rate limits, or required permissions beyond the generic JWT/tenant/company scope. It adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

While the description is short (4 lines), it wastes space on implementation routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help the agent. It is not concise in a value-adding sense.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to interpret it. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations, the tool definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is tautological and provides no guidance on valid keys, values, or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent fully in the dark.

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 only restates the tool name ('Smokeball connector operation get_layout_contacts') without defining what layout contacts are or what the tool retrieves. It lacks a specific verb+resource explanation, making the purpose vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., smokeball_add_layout_contact or other list tools). The description is purely operational, with no context about use cases or prerequisites.

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