github_repo_contributors

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

The description notes 'Returns a page', indicating pagination, but does not disclose whether it returns only commit authors or all repo collaborators, or any rate limits. With no annotations, more detail would be helpful.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, effectively communicating the core function without fluff. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 is provided, and the description does not mention return format or fields. However, the tool is straightforward, and the schema covers parameters fully. Adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond 'who builds a project'. Baseline 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 lists a repository's contributors and includes a parenthetical explanation ('who builds a project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_repo' (repo info) and 'github_repo_forks' (forks). However, it could be more specific about returning a page of 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'github_repo' or 'github_search_users'. Without context about when contributors are needed over other repo data, an agent may misuse it.

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