contributors

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the tool is read-only, returns a structured object with total/returned/offset/truncated/rows, and explains that rows contain a 'name' and an 'in' array indicating where the name appears. The truncation signal and pagination implications are clear.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence bundles purpose, parameters, and an example. The second sentence covers output structure and integration with sibling tool. Every part earns its place.

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 the tool has 6 parameters (none required), an enum, and an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: usage patterns, output format, pagination hints, and integration with searchmedia. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'Omit to list everyone (of type when given)', using count to return only total, and the pagination pattern). It gives a concrete example ('List all bands = {type: "band"} with no name') that clarifies the enum.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Find or list contributors') and immediately clarifies the resource (bands, solo artists, composers, actors, directors). It distinguishes itself from sibling searchmedia by explaining that the output name is meant to be fed back into searchmedia for drilling. This makes the tool's role clear and complementary.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list contributors by type or search by name) and provides a concrete downstream action ('feed the exact name back into searchmedia'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation among the siblings.

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