Get all contribors of a change request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the endpoint path. It does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return value structure. The description is adequate given the annotations already cover safety and idempotence.

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, consisting of a single sentence and the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it contains a typo ('contribors' instead of 'contributors'), which slightly reduces clarity. Despite that, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple get-list tool with no enums, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It states the purpose and endpoint. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of user objects) or any pagination behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. It meets the minimum viable standard but has gaps.

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, meaning each parameter is already documented as path parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names. It provides no explanation of what the parameters represent (e.g., spaceId is the ID of the space containing the change request). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get all contributors of a change request', specifying the verb (get) and the resource (contributors of a change request). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on a specific aspect of change requests. The endpoint path is also provided for additional clarity.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about when it is appropriate to retrieve contributors versus other change request details. Sibling tools like 'get_change_request_by_id' or 'get_change_request_changes' serve different purposes, but no comparative guidance is given.

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