accelo_get_contributor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool retrieves a contributor by ID and says nothing about permissions, error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 short and front-loads the core action before listing arguments. There is no superfluous text. The argument list is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it does not harm readability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned, what errors can occur, and how this differs from related contributor tools. It provides none of that. For a get-by-ID tool in a large sibling ecosystem, these omissions are significant.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'id' as 'Contributor ID' and 'fields' as 'Additional fields to return', which is minimal. The 'fields' parameter is especially vague—no format, allowed values, or examples are given.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single contributor by ID.' The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'accelo_list_contributors', though the alternative is not named. An agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like accelo_list_contributors or accelo_get_staff. Usage is only implied by the word 'Get'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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