gitlab_get_user_contributions_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function well and lists what data is returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. It adds value by specifying the aggregation scope but lacks operational details.

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 clear sections (purpose, returns, use cases, parameters, example) and avoids unnecessary repetition. However, the 'Returns contribution summary including' section is somewhat verbose and could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 read-only summary tool with 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context: it clearly explains what the tool does, what data it returns, use cases, and includes an example. The main gap is the lack of output schema, which the description partially compensates for by listing return data categories.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'use either user_id or username' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Summarize user's recent contributions across issues, MRs, and commits' with a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('user's contributions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gitlab_get_user_commits or gitlab_get_user_activity_feed by focusing on aggregated, multi-source summaries rather than individual activity streams.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool through 'Use cases' (performance reviews, team tracking, identifying contributors, project monitoring). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as gitlab_get_user_activity_feed for raw activity data instead of summaries.

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