stale_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. However, it doesn't clarify what 'strong relationships' means (thresholds heuristics), what 'recent' is defined as, whether the output is a count or list, or whether the query could be expensive for large graphs. The min_days parameter hints at recency definition, but the description doesn't surface key behavioral semantics beyond the parameter.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core function. Efficient and clear in its brevity. No extraneous content.

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 the tool has no annotations, no schema descriptions (0% coverage), and 10 sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does have an output schema which explains return structure, but the key open questions — definition of 'strong', definition of 'recent', and relation to sibling tools — remain unaddressed. The min_days parameter (default 180) suggests recency logic, but the description fails to connect the dots clearly enough for an agent to correctly judge when to invoke this.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for limit and min_days. The description doesn't add meaning for these parameters either — 'limit' and 'min_days' are self-descriptive names, but the description doesn't clarify how min_days interacts with 'recent' or what a sensible limit is. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 strong relationships with no recent interaction' uses a specific verb (List) plus a resource (relationships/contacts), and distinguishes the scope ('strong relationships', 'no recent interaction'). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like graph_status or record_interaction. The purpose is specific enough to be useful.

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. With 10 sibling tools including search_people, get_person, and graph_status, there's no clarity on edge cases (e.g., what defines 'strong relationship' or 'recent'), nor when a user should prefer this over other search/list tools. The description implies it's for relationship health queries but offers no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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