Get Files For Contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool retrieves 'all' files, optionally includes previous versions, and excludes File Link custom fields. This gives useful scope boundaries, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response format, which would make it more complete.

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 two short sentences plus a note. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the optional parameter, and the note clarifies an important exclusion. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the optional parameter, and a key limitation. It lacks mention of pagination or return value details, but the essential context for using the tool is present. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully (contact_id and include_versions with descriptions). The description restates the include_versions option but adds no new parameter syntax or nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Retrieve all files attached to a specific contact,' which specifies the action (retrieve) and resource (files for a contact). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file (single file) and other attached-to-contact tools (emails, notes) by focusing on files, and adds the optional versions behavior.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need files attached to a contact. The note about excluding File Link custom fields gives a limitation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or name any alternative. There is no direct contrast with sibling tools like get_file or search, so guidance is moderate.

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