get_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and object, without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or behavior such as pagination or sorting. The schema descriptions provide some parameter details, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what is obvious from 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, achieving high efficiency.

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 low complexity, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral detail, which would make it fully complete for an agent.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and query), including defaults and matching logic. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('搜索或列出微信联系人', i.e., 'search or list WeChat contacts'), making the tool's purpose explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_sessions and get_chat_history, which focus on sessions and messages.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the tool's name and description imply it is for contact retrieval, while siblings focus on session/message data, giving a subtle contextual cue. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not explicit guidance.

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