contribos_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'takeability evidence' but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, return format, or how evidence is gathered or scored, leaving behavior largely opaque.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately concise. It is not fully efficient because a phrase like 'takeability evidence' is left unexplained, but structure is otherwise sound.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is far too thin for a three-parameter search tool. It gives a domain hint, but omits how to use the parameters, what the search covers, and what the agent gets back.

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 has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention repos, topic, or language at all. An agent receives no semantic guidance on how to populate any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('open issues') qualified by newcomer welcome and takeability evidence, so an agent can understand the tool's intent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'where a newcomer is actually welcome' implies a search context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like contribos_review or contribos_check. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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