contribos_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes output content but omits safety profile (read-only vs. mutating), side effects, auth/API requirements, rate limits, and error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the evidence components. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the packed list makes it somewhat heavy.

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?

The description enumerates the return contents, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits key input semantics (repo+title vs. issue_url choice) and API access prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage context.

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 67%, and the description says nothing about the three parameters (repo, title, issue_url). It does not explain when to use repo+title versus issue_url, nor does it mention that issue_url needs API access. The schema carries most of the semantic load and the description adds none.

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 deliverable: an 'Evidence-backed contribution brief for an issue' and enumerates what it contains (files, similar PRs, tests, look-alike files, house rules, review questions). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like contribos_review or contribos_find.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The description only states what the tool outputs; it never indicates when an agent should choose this over contribos_review, contribos_find, or other sibling tools.

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