Gitee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for non-existent paths), or output format (e.g., raw text vs. structured data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity (a read operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or what the return value contains (e.g., file content, directory listing). This makes it inadequate for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (owner, repo, path, branch). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('Gitee 仓库中文件或目录的内容' meaning 'contents of files or directories in a Gitee repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_branch' or 'get_issue', but the resource focus (file/directory contents vs. branch/issue metadata) provides implicit distinction.

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 doesn't mention related tools like 'get_branch' (for branch metadata) or 'create_or_update_file' (for modifying files), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing repository access. Usage is implied only by the action and resource.

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