gitee_translate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description omits critical traits: it does not state that translation relies on a local LLM with fallback to a dictionary gloss (this detail only appears in the input schema), nor does it mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The return format hints at error handling ('translated' bool, 'note') but does not explicitly explain failure modes.

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: a clear purpose sentence, a brief rationale, a return format block, and examples. No redundant or vague wording. Every element serves to clarify the tool's operation.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with a clear purpose, the description provides adequate context: purpose, rationale, return format, and examples. It integrates well with sibling tools (unique role). Minor omission: the description does not restate the 1200-character limit from the schema, but the examples cover primary usage. Could include a note about when 'note' is not null for full completeness.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description adds value by including a return format and three concrete examples that show valid parameter combinations and expected outputs. This helps an agent understand the parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb ('Translate') and resource ('Chinese text to English'), and narrows the context to specific Gitee content types ('repo descriptions, issues, commit messages'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (none of which handle translation), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 typical use cases ('repo descriptions, issues, commit messages') and gives three concrete examples covering all operations. It implicitly conveys when to use the tool (anytime Chinese text needs translation or detection within the Gitee bridge). However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or mention alternatives, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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