Get GitLab capabilities

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

The description mentions 'read-only probes', which aligns with the annotations indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, since the annotations already cover these traits, the description adds little new behavioral transparency beyond reinforcing the read-only guarantee.

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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It does not mention the optional nature of parameters or how project scoping affects results, but that information is likely provided in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand when to use it.

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 clear descriptions for project, refresh, and detailed parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is appropriate.

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: discovering GitLab instance capabilities, identity, token, API support, permissions, licensing, and configuration. It distinguishes itself from other get/list operations by focusing on meta-information about the instance.

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 implies usage for discovering instance capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It could mention that it is useful for feature detection or verifying permissions, but the read-only nature and focus on capabilities make the use case fairly clear.

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