gitea_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that secrets are never returned, explains what gitAvailable=false means, provides remediation steps, and lists each output category including credential candidates and session target.

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 information-dense but efficient, beginning with the core purpose and then progressively adding details about output, secrecy, invocation trigger, and recovery actions. No sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating key output elements such as server configuration, baseUrl, credential candidates, git availability, and session-scoped target. It also explains how to interpret gitAvailable and how to fix that condition.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description also explicitly states 'Takes no input,' confirming that the agent should not attempt to pass parameters.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Report the resolved connection and credential state,' then enumerates the exact payload. This clearly differentiates gitea_status from the mutation/config sibling tools as a read-only diagnostic tool.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when a tool returns 401/403 or NotConfiguredError to diagnose the connection state,' which is an actionable trigger condition. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the diagnostic context is clear and specific.

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