missive_list_contacts

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it lists supported parameters like search, order, limit (max 200), offset, modified_since, include_deleted. This provides functional boundaries. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and requirement; second lists parameters and read-only hint. Very efficient, front-loaded, no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not indicate return structure (e.g., array of contact objects, pagination info). It also omits error cases (e.g., missing contact_book). For a list operation with 7 parameters, it is moderately complete but could add output hints.

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 100%, so the description's parameter enumeration adds little new meaning. It restates the schema's field list without clarifying format, constraints, or interactions beyond what's already defined.

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 the verb 'List', resource 'contacts', and context 'in a contact book'. It also mentions requirement for contact_book. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like missive_get_contact, though the list vs single distinction is implicit.

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 description notes that a contact_book is required and that the operation is read-only, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., missive_get_contact for a single contact, missive_search_contacts if exists). No 'when not to use' or 'see also' references.

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