gitea_list_pr_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses behavioral traits by specifying that the tool returns file listings with addition/deletion counts. However, it fails to state that this is a read-only operation, omits pagination behavior, and does not mention authentication requirements or rate limiting concerns.

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 and appropriately front-loaded with the action. However, it wastes space with the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag at the beginning which adds no value for the agent.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description meets minimum viability by stating the core return value structure (files with counts). However, significant gaps remain regarding the 'site' parameter semantics, pagination, and error conditions.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate heavily. While the description implies the need for a pull request (pr_number), it provides no semantic guidance for the other three parameters: what format 'site' expects (URL, name?), whether 'owner' is an organization or user, or that 'repo' is the repository name.

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 specific action (List) and resource (changed files in a pull request), including the scope of returned data (additions/deletions count). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is cruft that slightly detracts, and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gitea_get_pr_diff, though the 'additions/deletions' hint implies file-level metadata rather than diff 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing PR number from gitea_list_pull_requests) or contrast with gitea_get_pr_diff for diff content versus file listings.

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