get_contributor_subreddits

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-like action and does not mention authentication requirements, token handling, pagination, rate limits, or possible errors. The access_token parameter hints at auth but the description does not explain what happens when it is omitted.

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-loaded with the core operation, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of the schema. The docstring structure is easy for an agent 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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, this is minimally adequate: the operation and parameters are covered. However, it is missing usage differentiation and any behavioral context such as auth requirements or what 'contributor permissions' means in Reddit. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the overall context is still thin.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining access_token as optional and specifying limit's valid range and default (1-100, default 100). This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title declarations. It could go further by clarifying what the access token is used for or what happens without one, but the provided semantics are clear.

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 operation — retrieving subreddits where the user has contributor permissions — which identifies both the resource and the permission scope. It is clear and distinct from siblings like get_user_subreddits and get_moderated_subreddits, though it never explicitly names those alternatives. A specific verb (Get) plus the contributor-permission qualifier makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling Reddit tools such as get_user_subreddits or get_moderated_subreddits. The contributor-permission wording implies it is for contributor data, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. An agent must infer the intended use case from the name and description alone.

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