GitMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'list' repositories, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List repositories on Gitea'—making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal 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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on authentication needs, result format, or behavioral traits, which are important for a read operation in a multi-tool environment. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'user' parameter documented as 'Username to list repos for'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining default behavior if 'user' is omitted or detailing output structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 repositories on Gitea' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories on Gitea), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_repos' or 'gitea_get_repo', which would require mentioning scope or filtering details to earn a 5.

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 when to choose 'gitea_list_repos' over 'github_list_repos' or 'gitea_get_repo', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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