OBS Contacts

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that sensitive data is redacted by default, a behavioral trait. However, it omits other behaviors like read-only nature (implied but not explicit), authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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. All information is front-loaded and relevant.

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?

The description is very brief but the tool is simple. An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool (e.g., for viewing contacts) and does not mention pagination or ordering, which might be relevant for a contact list.

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?

There is one parameter ('include_sensitive') with 0% schema coverage. The description indirectly explains its purpose by stating the default redaction, implying that include_sensitive=true would show redacted data. However, it does not explicitly name the parameter or describe its effect in detail.

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 'Read', the resource 'contact records', and a key behavioral detail ('phones/emails redacted by default'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are contact-specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when-not-to-use or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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