nworks_contact_list

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement and scope (contact.read), adding detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not describe return format or pagination behavior, but the parameters hint at pagination. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise: a single sentence that states the purpose, gives example requests, and notes authentication. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not mention pagination or filtering capabilities, though parameters like count and cursor imply them. Overall, it is adequate for basic usage, but could explicitly mention pagination.

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 schema provides thorough descriptions for all parameters (count, email, cursor, etc.), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a list of NAVER WORKS personal contacts, provides example natural-language requests, and distinguishes itself from other contact tools by focusing on the list operation. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and resource '개인 연락처 목록' are 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?

It gives example user requests ('show contact list', 'check my contacts') and mentions the required OAuth scope, which helps with usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with nworks_contact_get or other alternative tools, though the list vs. single distinction is implied.

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