gitee_list_starred_gists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior (although parameters hint at it), or what happens if no starred gists (e.g., empty list). For a read-only operation, minimal additional context is given.

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 short (three words), with no wasted text. For a simple list tool, this is efficient, though it lacks structured information or bullet points. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from slight expansion.

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 low complexity (no output schema, few optional params), the description combined with schema covers the bare minimum. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, which are important given the many sibling tools. It is not fully complete for an agent to select confidently.

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% for the three optional parameters (since, page, per_page), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how to use the parameters (e.g., format for 'since' or interaction with pagination).

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 'List starred gists' clearly states the action (list) and resource (starred gists). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gitee_list_gists' (lists user's own gists) and 'gitee_check_gist_starred' (checks if a specific gist is starred), reducing ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for gists the user has starred, nor does it indicate scenarios where a different tool (e.g., gitee_list_gists or gitee_check_gist_starred) would be more appropriate.

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