gitee_get_collaborator_permission

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get collaborator permission level'. It does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, what permissions the caller needs, or what the output looks like. The lack of output schema further burdens the description, which fails to compensate.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded with brief context without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place, but the content is insufficient for a helpful tool description.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the returned permission levels, when to use this tool versus gitee_check_collaborator or gitee_list_collaborators, or any prerequisites.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, username). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (collaborator permission level). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitee_add_collaborator or gitee_check_collaborator by focusing on permission level. However, it could explicitly mention that it pertains to a specific repository and collaborator, though the schema parameters imply this.

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. For example, it does not differentiate from gitee_check_collaborator (which checks existence) or gitee_list_collaborators (which lists all and their permissions). The agent receives no context for selection.

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