list_contact_connections_for_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'list all' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination exists, or any other behavioral traits such as ordering or error states. For a list tool, basic transparency is missing.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action 'List'. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema and a single required parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. Minor gaps include lack of mention of pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool, this is sufficient.

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 description adds context that contact_id identifies the contact whose connections are listed, which is not present in the schema beyond the title. However, it does not explain expected format or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides minimal added value.

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', the resource 'client/project connections', and the scope 'for a specific contact'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_contact_connections and list_contact_connections_for_client.

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 when you have a contact_id and want its connections, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_contact_connections_for_client or list_contact_connections_for_project. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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