m365_list_contacts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not its safety profile (e.g., read-only, requires authentication). Since annotations are missing, the description should compensate but does not, earning a 2.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or redundancy. It perfectly balances brevity and clarity.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details such as whether all contacts are returned (or paginated), and it does not explicitly state the read-only nature. Given the presence of sibling tools, the agent might benefit from more context. Score 3.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the scope (Microsoft 365/Outlook), which is meaningful context beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a 4 is justified.

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') and resource ('contacts from your Microsoft 365 / Outlook address book'). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' (which might be from a different service) or 'm365_search_contacts' (which filters contacts). A 4 is appropriate.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_contacts for filtering, m365_get_contact for a single contact). The agent receives no help in choosing the right tool.

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