rm_list_client_contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the client-scoping, such as pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, so it only meets the baseline.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the action and object, making it immediately scannable.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, this description plus the input schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It would be slightly richer with an explicit note that the list is scoped to all contacts for the given client, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden for clarifying client_id. It only restates that contacts are associated with a client and does not explain accepted formats or how to resolve the client identifier. However, the single parameter is simple and self-explanatory from its name.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('contacts'), and a clear scope ('associated with a client'). This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like rm_create_client_contact and rm_delete_client_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 read-only verb and scope make the intended use clear: retrieve the contacts for a given client. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusing it with the create/delete client-contact siblings.

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