contribos_setup

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 usefully discloses provenance ('taken from its CI and contributing docs'), but never states that this is a read-only extraction, what happens when a repo has no CI or contributing docs, or whether the steps are cached/static versus generated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source-of-truth clause is appended efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool, though it could carry one more clause of routing or format guidance without bloat.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned ('exact steps'). It omits repo identifier format, behavior on repos lacking CI/docs, and any relation to sibling tools, leaving clear gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'repo' has no description in either place. The description's phrase 'a repository' hints at the value's meaning but gives no format (owner/repo slug, URL, or name), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 concrete deliverable — exact setup and test steps for a repository — and discloses the source (CI and contributing docs), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like contribos_brief or contribos_diagnose, which could plausibly also touch repo onboarding context.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the eight sibling tools, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., repo must be public, must have CI config). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the one-line purpose.

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