list_lightbox_contributions

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 behavioral disclosure. The description only restates the tool's function and adds no information about return format, pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether this is a read-only operation. It is too minimal to be transparent about behavior.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Despite the low complexity, the description is ambiguous about what 'contributions tied to lightboxes' actually means—does it list all contributions in any lightbox, or contributions of lightbox members? With no output schema and no parameter to specify a lightbox, the agent cannot infer request/response semantics. Sibling tools with similar names (list_contributions, list_group_contributions) further confuse the context.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there are no parameters. It does clarify the scope ('tied to lightboxes'), which is the only semantic possible.

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 ('List') and resource ('contributions') with a clear scope ('tied to lightboxes'). It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_contributions, list_featured_contributions, or list_group_contributions, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the absence of any context about filtering, prerequisites, or alternative tools leaves the agent without direction. 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.