spix_contact_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show', which implies a read operation, but does not specify what data is returned (e.g., types of communication included), any privacy or authentication constraints, or the format of the output.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming lengthy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least specify what 'communication history' includes (e.g., calls, emails, SMS). It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'contact_id', so the description does not need to add extra meaning. However, it does not elaborate beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a simple parameter. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Show contact communication history' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('contact communication history'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like spix_contact_show, spix_call_list, spix_email_list, which also deal with contact-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spix_contact_summary, spix_call_list, or spix_sms_thread. No context for prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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