Get project contributors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the return shape ('wrapper containing the original response and a list of User models') and the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which the annotations do not convey.

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 docstring is short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, and the Returns/Raises sections earn their place. The Args section, however, is pure boilerplate that conveys nothing about the 126-parameter schema, so a third of the text is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe the return wrapper, which helps. But for a tool exposing 126 optional parameters with no descriptions, no pagination guidance, and no differentiation from gitlab_get_project_members, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 0% across 126 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it collapses everything into a generic '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' and gives only project_id as an example. Pagination params (page, per_page, max_pages) and sorting/filtering options that actually matter for this endpoint go entirely unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about contributors to a project.' An agent can tell this retrieves contributor data on a GitLab project. However, it never distinguishes contributors from closely related siblings like gitlab_get_project_members or gitlab_get_users, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_project_members, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is indirect, buried in the Raises section (MissingParameterError if project_id is missing), which hints at a prerequisite but does not guide selection.

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