clio_get_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Full detail' but does not clarify side effects (though the name implies read-only), potential errors (e.g., 404 if not found), required permissions, or what 'full detail' actually includes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name itself implies.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, so it does not earn a 5, but it is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool.

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, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'full detail' includes, any error behaviors, or how this relates to the broader workflow (e.g., using clio_find_contacts to obtain an ID first). The description provides only the bare minimum, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter (id, a number) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'one contact' hints that the id identifies a contact, but it does not explain the id format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description adds almost no value beyond the bare schema, leaving the parameter semantically underspecified.

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 'Full detail for one contact' clearly identifies the tool as a retrieval operation for a single contact, using the verb 'get' implied by the tool name and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clio_find_contacts (which suggests searching/listing multiple contacts) and clio_create_contact (which creates) by focusing on a single existing contact.

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. It does not mention that this should be used when you already have a contact ID, or that clio_find_contacts should be used for searching. There is no context about prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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