kanbn_contributor_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that the tool produces a usage report and covers spelling variants and unknown values, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is examined, how the report is returned, or whether any project setup is required.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence without unnecessary words. It communicates the core action and distinctive coverage efficiently.

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?

For a reporting tool with only one optional parameter, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to attempt a call. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without details about the report's structure or return format, and it is unclear whether path is needed for workspace resolution.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds no extra context about how path should be supplied or what happens when it is omitted, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 states a clear action ('Report') on a specific resource ('how the workspace's contributors are used') and adds useful scope ('including spelling variants and unknown values'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling contributor tools such as kanbn_get_contributors or kanbn_find_contributor, so it stops short of full distinctiveness.

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 when to use the tool: when a contributor usage report with attention to spelling variants and unknown values is needed. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, and the large sibling set includes several contributor-related tools, so the agent must infer the correct selection.

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