list_contributor_network_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope ('contributor-network.read'), explains parameter behavior for kind, track, public_code, and sort, and notes that public_code lookup ignores cursor. However, it does not describe the output structure or error conditions, which is a minor gap.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear initial statement followed by parameter explanations separated by line breaks. Each sentence adds value without repetition.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive. It explains key parameters but omits details on pagination (beyond cursor mention), error handling, and response structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains meaning for 4 of 8 parameters (kind, track, public_code, sort) but provides no information about limit, cursor, search, or competition_id. This partial coverage leaves gaps.

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 identifies the tool as listing 'visible Contributor Network items' and specifies omitted fields, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_cheatsheets or list_solver_templates, though the 'kind' parameter implies coverage of multiple item types.

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 some parameter behavior (e.g., 'public_code' ignores cursor) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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