List User Contributions Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's only job is to add context such as ordering, pagination, or the shape of the contribution feed. It adds none of that, leaving the behavioral picture entirely to the annotations and output schema.

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 zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description only needs to explain scope and routing, and it half does. It never clarifies whether results are chronological, whether it covers all namespaces by default, or how it differs from other activity-listing siblings.

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 username, limit, namespace, and from_timestamp are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional meaning about how those filters interact, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List edits by a user'), which is enough for an agent to know this returns a user's contribution history rather than site-wide activity. It does not differentiate itself from list_recent_changes_tool or get_user_info_tool, which are the most likely confusions.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling list_recent_changes_tool that also surfaces edit activity. Usage is only inferable from the name-plus-one-sentence.

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