getRepoContributors

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 merely says 'Get contributors', which essentially restates the tool's name. It does not disclose whether the result is paginated, what fields are returned per contributor, or whether any ownership/auth checks apply beyond the parameters.

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 extremely concise, using a single six-word sentence that starts with the action and clearly states the object. There is zero filler or repetition, which is ideal for quick parsing.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a description of this brevity is insufficient. It does not define what 'contributors' means in terms of returned data, how the relays parameter affects behavior, or any error conditions an agent should anticipate. An agent would need to make significant assumptions.

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% (two of three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for repoId and ownerPubkey, and it does not explain the optional relays parameter at all.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('contributors to a repository'), which immediately conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like getRepo or listRepos. The tool name reinforces this, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the repository existing or the owner having a specific role. With many repo-related sibling tools, an agent gets no explicit direction on selecting this tool or handling edge cases.

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