agenthop_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the concrete contents returned (names, fingerprints, online flag, pending invites), which is useful. However, it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether any auth or network state is required, or anything about pagination or failure modes.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the returned items with no filler. Every clause conveys payload 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned fields well for a zero-argument read tool. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many similarly-scoped sibling tools.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb (列出/list) and enumerates the concrete resources returned: contacts with name and fingerprint, the local node's own fingerprint, whether the inbox address is online, and pending invitations. It is specific, though the bundling of several distinct resource types into one tool makes the boundary a bit fuzzy, and no sibling (e.g. agenthop_status) is named or excluded.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives, despite overlapping siblings such as agenthop_status, agenthop_wait, and agenthop_invite. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given.

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