get_contributors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output ordering but omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, if the sort is descending, or any rate-limit considerations. This is minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core function and ordering without wasting words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), a minimal description could suffice, but this one omits critical context: the repository identifier format, the return value shape, and any assumption about the default limit. It leaves the agent with too many unknowns for confident invocation.

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%. The description's phrase 'top contributors' implicitly suggests the limit parameter sets the number of contributors, but it does not explain owner_repo format (e.g., 'owner/repo') or clarify limit's behavior beyond the schema default. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 returns top contributors ranked by commit count. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits (which lists commit records) and get_repo_stats (which provides broader repository statistics).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit_activity or list_commits. There is no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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