get_contact_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how to handle errors, or usage context, which is inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data about contact points in a system like Grafana.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific contact point,' which hints that the 'uid' parameter identifies the contact point, but doesn't explain the UID format, source, or constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete compensation.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific contact point'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contact_points' or 'test_contact_point', but the specificity of 'specific contact point' versus 'list' implies individual retrieval versus listing.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_contact_points' or 'test_contact_point'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a contact point UID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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