message_getContact

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

No annotations are provided, and the description 'Get the contact' gives no behavioral details such as return format, side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. The agent receives no transparency about what the tool does beyond the action.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It omits essential information that should be provided, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 3-parameter tool, the description must explain what the tool returns and under what conditions. 'Get the contact' alone is completely inadequate for an agent to predict output or failure modes.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or context beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Get the contact' names a verb and resource but is vague about which contact is retrieved (sender, mentioned, etc.) or how it relates to the message parameters. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like chat_getContact or client_getContactById.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_getContact or client_getContacts. The description provides no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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