gitee_get_readme

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the README is returned as raw markdown, rendered HTML, or any side effects (none expected). It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response format.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no extraneous information, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format (e.g., raw markdown, rendered HTML), the expected behavior when the README does not exist, or how the 'ref' parameter affects the retrieval. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 describes all three parameters with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 tool retrieves a repository's README. The verb 'Get' and resource 'repository README' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gitee_get_file_contents which can also retrieve README content.

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, there is no mention that gitee_get_file_contents can also fetch README if the path is known, or any prerequisites like authentication.

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