kanbn_find_contributor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the core lookup behavior: matching against name, display name, or aliases. However, it omits details such as exact versus partial matching, behavior when no contributor or multiple contributors match, and the output shape, leaving the behavior only minimally transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately compact for a simple lookup tool. It is not a 5 because the same brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage detail addressed in other dimensions.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input semantics but does not clarify what is returned or how ambiguous/no-match cases are handled. It is minimally viable for a simple lookup but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for the 'value' parameter by explaining that it is matched against name, display name, or aliases. The 'path' parameter is left to the schema, which already describes it adequately.

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 and resource ('Find the contributor a value refers to') and adds matching criteria (name, display name, aliases), which makes the lookup purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kanbn_get_contributors or kanbn_current_user, so some selection differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'a value refers to', which implies a lookup scenario but does not tell the agent how to choose this over sibling contributor tools.

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