list_contributions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List' (implying read-only) but does not mention pagination behavior, response format, permissions, or what fields are returned. The reference to contribution_id implies it is in the response, but that is not made explicit. This falls short of the disclosure expected without annotation support.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more context about return values, pagination, or how this tool compares to related list tools. However, the usage pointer to upload_file/upload_files adds practical context. It adequately covers the basics but lacks depth for a tool with many siblings and optional filters.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (q, page, per_page) with 100% coverage, so the description needs no additional parameter explanation. It does mention contribution_id, but that is not a parameter of this tool; it is a hint for subsequent upload tools. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('contribution portals'), with a clarifying parenthetical ('upload links') that distinguishes this from other list operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_lightbox_contributions, but the core purpose is 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 second sentence provides explicit usage guidance: after listing, use the returned contribution_id with upload_file/upload_files to target a storage folder or lightbox. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling list alternatives, but the instruction on how to use the result is direct and actionable.

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