file_contributors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as ranking authors by commit count and including specific metrics (line ownership, percentage, date range), but does not mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or data freshness. The description adds value beyond a minimal statement but lacks comprehensive operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's functionality without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and elaborates with specific output details, making every word count. No extraneous information is included.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by addressing potential limitations or example use cases to fully guide an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('file' path and 'repo_path' default). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on output semantics rather than input details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('shows', 'ranked') and resources ('every author who has ever committed to a file'), including detailed output information (line ownership, commit percentage, date range). It distinguishes from siblings like 'blame_context' or 'file_history' by focusing on contributor statistics rather than change tracking or commit narratives.

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 usage for analyzing file authorship and contributor activity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'blame_context' (which might show per-line attribution) or 'search_commits' (which could filter commits). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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