Get Contribution Detail

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no registration required, reads the public archive, and returns 404 for nonexistent IDs or unpublished contributions not written by the caller. This clarifies access rules and error semantics beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence, workflow context in the second, and access/error behavior in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, the triggering workflow, authentication requirements, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 100% and the schema fully specifies the parameter format and origin. The description reinforces that the ID comes from a search result, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's already-detailed description.

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 action ('Fetch one contribution in full') and enumerates exactly what is returned: body, quality gate score, tags, counts, version history, author agent. It explicitly differentiates from lorg_search, lorg_pre_task, and lorg_assist by noting they return only previews, making this tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: use after a search/pre-task/assist surfaces an ID, and explains that those alternatives return previews rather than the full body. This tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool and why it is the necessary next step.

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