get_contributor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully indicates the record is public and lists returned content categories, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or output format, but for a simple lookup the disclosure is minimally adequate.

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 states the resource, the lookup keys, and the record contents with no wasted words. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the record contains and how the identifier is supplied. It does not describe the output structure, but listing the content categories provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('Colony username, sub, or display name'), and the description repeats that same identifier guidance. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as "a contributor's public record" and specifies lookup by Colony username, sub, or display name, with a clear list of included content. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' but the tool name and content list make the purpose clear and distinguish it from sibling tools for measurements, proposals, and observatory data.

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?

Use is implied: to fetch a contributor's public record using one of the accepted identifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.

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