accelo_list_contributors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that contributors can be auto-CC'd on correspondence and that they link staff/affiliations to work objects, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple list operation. However, it does not cover pagination behavior or default limits beyond what args imply.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose paragraph and an Args section. It is front-loaded with what contributors are. It is appropriately sized for a list tool with complex filters, though the Args section could be slightly more compact.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: it explains filters, fields, search, and pagination. It is missing explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools and does not detail the return format, but for a list endpoint this is largely sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all five parameters with detail: filters keys, fields format, search scope, page indexing, and limit max. This adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema properties. It loses a point only because some filter key semantics (e.g., standing, against_type) are not explained.

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 provides a specific verb (List) and resource (contributors) and goes beyond the name by defining what a contributor is: third-party contacts involved in client work. This distinguishes it from siblings like accelo_list_contacts or accelo_get_contributor_type.

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 implies usage by defining contributors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accelo_get_contributor or accelo_count_contributors. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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