contacts_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full contact details' entails. 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning its place by stating the core action and resource.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter specifics, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding without relying heavily on the output schema.

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 (contact_id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is used to identify a contact for retrieval, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter only partially clarified.

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 'Return full contact details' clearly states the action (return) and resource (contact details), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like contacts_search or contacts_create_or_update. It specifies 'full' details, which adds some specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contacts_search or contacts_create_or_update. The description implies it retrieves a specific contact by ID, but this is not explicitly stated as a usage rule or exclusion.

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