contributor_stats

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states the ranking basis ('by commit count'). It says nothing about sorting direction, tie-breaking, permissions required, or whether it is a safe read operation. It does at least scope the window to 'the last N days', which slightly clarifies 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is a function of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, omitting the required owner/repo parameters and any usage context leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 should compensate. It maps loosely to two of four parameters ('N days' for days, 'Top' for top_n), but owner and repo — both required — get no mention, and no defaults or format guidance are supplied.

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 names a specific verb-implied operation and resource: ranking contributors by commit count within a time window. It is clearly a stats/ranking tool, not a listing or mutation tool. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like commit_activity, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as commit_activity or repo_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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