gitea_admin_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the multi-modal behavior, strict validation with field-level ValueError, and the effect of the 'help' and 'schema' operations. This is detailed enough for an agent to predict behavior.

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 relatively concise but presented as a code block without clear structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It front-loads the main purpose but could be more scannable.

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 complexity (multi-mode, no output schema), the description covers intent, parameter usage, and validation behavior. It lacks details on return value format or error types beyond ValueError, but this is acceptable for the scope.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the meaning of both parameters: operation can be 'help', 'schema', or an OpName; params is for operation-specific arguments. Examples add clarity beyond the schema's raw types.

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 performs 'Gitea admin read operations' and enumerates three distinct modes ('help', 'schema', invocation of OpName). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'admin' and 'read', contrasting with write, delete, and general read tools.

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 explicit usage for each mode with examples, and details parameter validation behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool relative to siblings (e.g., when to use gitea_read instead).

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