Agent Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is genuinely useful behavior: the no-argument call yields the list plus an Invite affordance, and 'Names are not IDs' warns about a common failure mode. It stops short of saying what the panel shows or whether it has side effects.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the read-only safety note is short. The opening clause 'Open Agents I Know as a full panel' is awkward and slightly opaque, and the URI-resolution guidance is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description correctly focuses on parameterization and default behavior. It is still incomplete on the one thing an agent most needs, the distinction from open_agent_contacts_home and the other contact tools in the sibling set.

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 the full burden and does so: it explains that both thread_id and peer_fulcra_userid must be exact identifiers, that they are alternatives for pinpointing one contact, and that names cannot be substituted. The 'resolve contacts://threads/id-' instruction is the only unclear piece, but overall both parameters gain real meaning beyond the bare anyOf string schema.

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 verb 'Open' plus the object 'Agents I Know as a full panel' establishes that this surfaces a UI panel rather than a data query, and 'omit IDs for the list and Invite someone' hints at the default view. However, the near-identical sibling open_agent_contacts_home is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell them apart, and 'full panel' is loose phrasing for what is opened.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for the parameter cases ('omit IDs for the list', 'for an exact contact ... pass its exact peer_fulcra_userid or discovered multiparty thread_id'). What it never states is when to choose this over open_agent_contacts_home or search_agent_contacts, which is the real routing decision for an agent facing 50 siblings.

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