list_contributors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the read-only nature implicitly through 'List' and adds the scope qualifier 'who have saved memories in this project', but does not describe edge cases like deduplication, ordering, or whether all historical contributors are included.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly more explicit about the expected use case among the many list-style sibling tools, but for a zero-parameter listing operation, the core context is sufficiently conveyed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') with a specific resource ('contributors') and a scope ('who have saved memories in this project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects, list_memories, and list_tags by identifying a unique resource type.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when you need to know which contributors have saved memories in the project, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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