contacts_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., contact not found), or the depth of data returned. The phrase 'full contact card' is vague.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a read operation.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what a 'full contact card' includes. It does not mention return value structure or field coverage. For a retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Schema description covers only contact_id (50% coverage). The description adds that both name and contact_id can be used for lookup, compensating somewhat. However, it does not specify the format of 'name' (e.g., exact match, partial) or any constraints.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full contact card', and the lookup methods 'by id or name'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like contacts_list (which lists contacts) and contacts_search (which searches by criteria).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contacts_search or contacts_list. The description implies usage when you have an id or name, but lacks explicit when-not or comparative context.

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