confluence_get_contributors

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 discloses the URL flexibility for page_id but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any behavioral traits like rate limits or error states.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus an Args block. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently details the parameter. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

While the parameter is well-explained, the description does not describe the return value (e.g., format of contributor list). Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information about what the tool returns, which is a notable gap for completeness.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description fully explains the only parameter 'page_id', specifying it can be a numeric ID or a Confluence URL (including short links). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 the tool gets unique contributors from version history, which distinguishes it from other Confluence tools that manage pages or labels. The verb 'get' and resource 'contributors' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving contributors but provides no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools (e.g., confluence_get_user or confluence_list_versions). 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.