list_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes filtering and count limits but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is minimal.

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 very concise, with a single sentence for purpose and a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary text.

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 are covered. However, the description lacks information on default behavior, ordering, or handling of no results. Given 0% schema coverage, it addresses parameters well but misses overall usage completeness.

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 must compensate. It provides clear, helpful details: 'search' matches name/email/company, 'count' is max (1-200). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/title.

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 clearly states it lists contacts from the default Contacts folder with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all email/calendar), but could be more specific about what 'contacts' refers to (e.g., address book).

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. Since there are no other contact tools among siblings, it is implied this is the only contact list tool, but no guidance on when not to use or context conditions.

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