create_file_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behaviors. It only states 'Create a new file' without mentioning potential overwrites, branch requirements, commit implications, or error conditions, offering almost no transparency.

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, concise sentence without unnecessary filler. It perfectly satisfies the requirement of being short and to the point.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (creating a file in a repository), yet the description omits essential context such as required vs. optional parameters, relationship to sibling tools, return values, or typical usage flow. It offers insufficient information for an agent to use the tool effectively in a wider workflow.

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 schema descriptions cover all six parameters (branch, content, encoding, file_path, project_id, commit_message) with straightforward definitions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond these, 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 action (create) and the object (a new file in a GitLab repository). It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it does not elaborate on distinguishing it from related tools like update_file_tool.

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 (e.g., update_file_tool, get_file_tool). It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, making it hard for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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