github_repos_list_contributors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: contributors are ordered by commit count, only the first 500 author emails link to accounts with the rest returned anonymous, and an empty repo returns an empty object. This meaningfully enriches the safety-only annotation profile.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, the 500-email linking caveat, and the empty-repo edge case. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does address key cases (ordering, anonymous contributors, empty repo). It does not cover pagination semantics or the shape of contributor objects, leaving minor gaps for a five-parameter tool.

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 all five parameters (anon, page, perPage, repo, owner) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the anonymous-contributor behavior indirectly and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (contributors), scope (a repository), and ordering (most commits first), plus a human framing ('who to ask about a repository'). The resource is specific enough to be unmistakable against siblings like github_repos_list_commits or github_repos_get.

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 phrase 'who to ask about a repository' implies the use case, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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