taiga_users_contacts

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 only states 'list', which implies a read operation, but does not describe the return format, whether pagination is involved, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral details. The description adds minimal context beyond 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 with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function and parameter mapping, but it omits context such as what constitutes a 'contact', whether the list is scoped to a project, or any expected response structure. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool effectively.

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 already describes 'id' as 'User ID' (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial meaning by linking it to 'a user' whose contacts are listed. This clarifies that the parameter is the user whose contact list is being retrieved, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 'List contacts of a user' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('contacts of a user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_users_get (get user details) and taiga_users_list (list users). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by describing what 'contacts' means in this context, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_users_get or taiga_users_list. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and brief description.

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