Get all Tasks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds the concrete HTTP method and required scope 'contacts.readonly', which is useful auth context beyond annotations. Pagination and response details are not mentioned, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 compact line containing the operation, endpoint, and scope with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every element 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an explicit endpoint/scope, so it can be invoked correctly without additional details. It omits return-shape or pagination details, but for a straightforward list operation these are less critical.

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 single parameter contactId is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The path template clarifies that contactId is a path parameter, but this adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 ('Get'), resource ('all Tasks'), and the REST endpoint scoped to a contact. The plural 'all Tasks' differentiates it from the singular sibling contacts_get_task.

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 endpoint: retrieve every task for a contact. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives like contacts_get_task.

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