Gitee

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 ('提交' implying a write operation) but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), error handling, rate limits, or what the tool returns (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.

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 of a mutation tool (committing multiple files to a repository) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., auth, side effects), usage guidelines, and return value information. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that might handle similar operations.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors (e.g., branch defaults), or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('提交' meaning 'submit' or 'commit') and resource ('多个文件' meaning 'multiple files' to 'Gitee仓库' meaning 'Gitee repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_file' which might handle single files or different workflows, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare to siblings like 'create_or_update_file' for single files or 'create_branch' for branch management, or specify scenarios (e.g., batch updates vs. individual edits). This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately among related tools.

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