github_repos_list_contributors

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, scope of results, or whether it returns user details or just logins. The pagination parameters are present in the schema, but the description does not clarify their usage or limitations.

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 very concise (three words), which is beneficial for quick understanding, but it sacrifices completeness. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, but lacks structure or additional context that could be added without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned and under what circumstances. It is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without relying on external knowledge or schema documentation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. For example, the schema defines pagination parameters with links to documentation, but the tool's description does not highlight or clarify them further.

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 'List repository contributors' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (repository contributors). It is specific and informative, though it does not differentiate from closely related tools like listing collaborators or contributors via other endpoints. However, the name itself already provides clear purpose, and the description reinforces it.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage context solely from the name and schema.

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