list_contributors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication, or what constitutes a contributor, offering only the bare verb phrase.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words or unstructured details, making it an appropriate size for the operation.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain return values and usage context; it does not. It omits pagination info, result structure, and any caveats, leaving the tool under-specified for 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the description adds no explanations for owner, repo, page, or per_page. The param names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'contributors' scoped to 'a repository', making its function clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stargazers and list_commits.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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