import_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a write operation, whether it requires permissions, how duplicates are handled, or what happens to existing contacts. Only the action is implied, yielding a low score.

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?

A single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is concise, though the method clause 'by phone number' is slightly ambiguous. Still appropriate for a zero-param tool.

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 zero-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what is imported and from where. It does not clarify whether contacts come from a device, a server, or phone number input, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, which per the calibration baseline yields a 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add; the schema is trivially complete.

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 states a clear verb ('Import') and resource ('contacts'), and adds a method ('by phone number') that differentiates it slightly from a generic import tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_contact or import, so it maxes out at 4.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is appropriate versus add_contact, import, or export_contacts. Score 2 reflects this absence.

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