Get GitLab project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by enumerating the data fields returned (repository, namespace, etc.), which helps set expectations. Yet it does not disclose anything about error behavior, rate limits, or how to interpret the statistics parameter, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 names the resource and enumerates what is fetched. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return formatting. It covers the main data categories, and the simplicity of the tool is matched by the description. The only minor gap is not mentioning the 'statistics' option, but that is a parameter detail rather than a contextual requirement.

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 schema provides a description for the required 'project' parameter, but the optional 'statistics' parameter has no description and the tool description does not mention it. With schema_description_coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving users unsure of the effect of the boolean flag and its relationship to the listed metadata fields.

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 gets repository, namespace, default branch, visibility, permissions, and feature metadata for a single GitLab project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_group_projects or get_group. The verb 'get' and the explicit resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when needing project details for one project (by ID or path), and the schema documents the project parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_projects or get_group, or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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