repo_contribution_rules

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add the non-obvious behavior that output is a filtered line list rather than full file bodies, but it says nothing about what happens when CONTRIBUTING.md or the PR template is absent, whether both are required, or how results are labeled per file.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the fetch targets and ending with the precise filter criterion. Nothing is redundant and no rephrasing of the tool name is present.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what the return looks like (a list of matching lines). The only real gap is undefined behavior when one or both target files do not exist.

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?

There is a single parameter, `repo`, with 0% schema description coverage — only a regex pattern hints at the owner/name format. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the gap; the pattern in the schema keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 specific verbs and resources: it fetches CONTRIBUTING.md and the pull request template, then lists lines matching AI-use or disclosure keywords. That is much more concrete than a generic 'get repo info', though it never states how it differs from the other repo tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for checking contribution/disclosure policy before submitting a change, but the description gives no explicit trigger, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to use instead if the caller wants full file contents rather than filtered lines.

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