show_gitee_status_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly defines the return format (ToolResult with content + PrefabApp card), notes a plain text fallback, and lists the data fields displayed. This is comprehensive for a status tool.

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 reasonably concise but includes a RATIONALE section and an examples section that add some redundancy. A marginal trim (e.g., dropping the first sentence of the rationale) could tighten it without losing value.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: purpose, output format, fallback behavior, and a usage example. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters (100% schema description coverage by default). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool shows and how the output is structured, satisfying the baseline for a param-free tool.

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 shows a 'gitee-mcp configuration status as a rich in-chat card' and explicitly lists what it displays: tier, token state, LLM provider health, and rate-limit headroom. It is distinct from sibling tools like gitee_explore or show_gitee_humming_card.

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 stating status tools 'must ship a Prefab surface' and implies it is the go-to for a quick overview. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context makes its use case clear.

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