gitee_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (success/error with suggestions) and notes that the 'readme' operation returns None when absent. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is good but could be improved by stating that all operations are read-only and safe.

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 concise and well-structured with a rationale, a clear return format section, and multiple examples. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. The examples are effective and easy to parse. No wasted words.

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 (5 parameters, 6 operations, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, each operation, return format, and failure behavior. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The only minor gap is authentication, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples that show how parameters are used together (e.g., 'path' in contents operation, 'limit' in commits). The detailed enum descriptions for 'operation' in the schema are supplemented by the examples. The description contributes beyond the schema, hence a 4.

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's purpose as 'Gitee repository intel' and lists the specific operations (metadata, README, languages, commits, file tree, branches). The rationale explains the design choice of a single portmanteau, and the examples and input schema reinforce the purpose. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gitee_explore which are for broader exploration.

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 a rationale and examples showing typical usage scenarios (e.g., owner/repo contract). It implies when to use this tool (for reading repository data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like gitee_search or show_gitee_status_card. The examples are clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but formal guidance is missing.

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