conduyt_get_contact_table_defaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the underlying endpoint (/api/v1/settings), the required permission scope (settings:view), the null-means-no-default outcome, and the versioning behavior of defaults being applied once per version. Only the failure/empty response behavior is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the opening clause, and the parentheticals each add real semantics (version application, null handling) rather than restating the name. Dense but no sentence is wasted.

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 parameterless settings getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is read, how null is interpreted, and the access requirement. Only the returned data shape (a list of column ids) is left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for 0 params applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a precise resource (account-level DEFAULT COLUMNS for the Contacts list), then explains what those columns actually are. The read framing also implicitly separates it from the sibling conduyt_set_contact_table_defaults.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the inspection counterpart to setting defaults, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or pointer to conduyt_set_contact_table_defaults for modification. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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