lokalise_list_contributors

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States returned fields (email, role, admin status, language permissions) and implies read-only. Does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but adequate for a list tool.

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?

Three well-structured sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, parameters, use cases, return details. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema, so description explains return fields and use cases. Covers what tool does, how to use, and what to expect. Could mention pagination details or error handling, but sufficient for typical usage.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions. Description repeats required/optional info and adds defaults and pagination hint, but does not add significant new semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3.

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 it lists team members (contributors) with roles and permissions. The verb 'Lists' is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove/update contributors.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: audit access, check assignments, prepare changes, avoid duplicates before adding. Implicitly contrasts with add tool, but does not name alternative explicitly. Good context.

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