gitee_create_check_run

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., creating a check run will associate it with a commit), authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The minimal description adds no behavioral insight beyond the obvious write operation.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words. However, it could be expanded to include one or two more sentences without losing conciseness, but as is, it earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is too brief. It does not explain what a check run is, how it relates to commits or CI, what the required parameters mean, or what happens upon successful creation. The agent has to infer entirely from the parameter names and descriptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, so the schema itself documents them well. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 'Create a check run' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update check run' or 'get check run' by the action 'create'. However, it does not elaborate on what a check run is or its purpose, which could be ambiguous without context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitee_update_check_run' or 'gitee_list_commit_check_runs'. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions under which creation is appropriate. The description leaves the agent without decision support.

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