List Contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only workspace scoping. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, that results are paginated and how many come back by default, or what the response looks like — all things an unannotated tool should cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Brevity here reflects the tool's simplicity rather than padding, though it leans toward under-specification.

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?

The schema is fully documented and the tool is a simple parameterless-required read, so callers can invoke it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the returned shape and paging behavior, and it does neither.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions of page and limit including defaults and maximum, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about pagination or ordering, which is the correct baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

A specific verb (list) plus resource (contacts) with a stated scope (your workspace). The resource noun alone distinguishes it from the many other list-* siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get-contact for a single record, or versus the audience/suppression list tools. Nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong choice or what prerequisites exist.

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