Lint project CI configuration

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context by noting it does not return merged YAML or protected variables, which is a security-relevant detail. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify output boundaries.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key output constraints. It avoids filler and conveys essential information efficiently, though it might benefit from slightly more detail on parameter usage.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description provides a high-level understanding of functionality and output, but omits parameter semantics and usage context. It is adequate for a straightforward lint scenario but leaves gaps for an agent to infer details about parameters like 'dry_run' and 'include_jobs'.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not explain the purpose of 'ref', 'content', 'dry_run', or 'include_jobs'. It vaguely references content validation and returned jobs, but provides no parameter-specific guidance, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it validates GitLab CI YAML in project context and specifies exactly what it returns (status, errors, warnings, jobs) and what it excludes (merged YAML, protected variables). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline or get_project, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is used for validating CI configuration without executing it, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., before running a pipeline) or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool names mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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