contribos_policy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful output behavior (every finding cites file:line) and implies read-only retrieval, but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, rate limits, or cost of the call. Adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the key behavioral promise (file:line citations) and the invocation cue. The enumerated policy list is dense but each item carries information, so little is wasted.

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 output schema, the description does the work of conveying what comes back — the policy categories and the file:line citation guarantee. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though return format nuances (markdown vs the json flag) are only covered by the schema.

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 100%, so both parameters (json, repo) are already fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides — its detail is about the returned content, not the inputs.

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 resource (a GitHub repo's contributor expectations) and enumerates the concrete policy areas it returns (AI policy, vouch/trust gates, claim-first norms, tests, changelog, sign-off, activity). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic tool, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like contribos_brief or contribos_check, which likely overlap.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before starting work on any repo,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer a sibling such as contribos_brief or contribos_check instead, so the routing is only partially resolved.

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