contribos_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this only drafts and never posts and that a human rewrites and posts it, plus conditional behavior for a vouch introduction. However, it omits any note on return format, permissions, or the API access the schema hints at for issue_url.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the critical never-post constraint. The parenthetical about the vouch introduction is slightly crammed but still earns its place.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the draft-only nature adequately, but it leaves the ambiguous 'title' parameter and the repo/issue_url interaction unexplained and gives no sense of what the draft output looks like.

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 67%: repo and issue_url are documented, but 'title' has no description in either place, and the description adds nothing about how repo/title/issue_url interact. The schema does most of the work, so the baseline 3 holds rather than being compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (Draft) and a concrete artifact (the short proposal a contributor posts on an issue before coding, plus a conditional vouch introduction). The purpose is clear, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like contribos_brief or contribos_policy, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'before coding' timing and 'The human rewrites and posts it; never post it' constraint imply when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives among the eight sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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