List commit statuses

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare the safety profile. The description adds that it covers 'CI and external status checks', which is useful but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or what response shape to expect. With output schema available, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, fitting the ideal concise format.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and moderate complexity, but the descriptions is minimal. Output schema and annotations handle return shape and safety, yet the optional filtering and sorting parameters are not explained. This is a acceptable but incomplete for an agent to confidently use all features.

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% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions) and the description does not compensate. It does not explain optional parameters like 'all', 'ref', 'sort', 'order_by', or pagination. Only the required 'project' and 'sha' are partially described in the schema, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 'List CI and external status checks attached to a GitLab commit' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab commit') while distinguishing from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'create_commit_status'. It clearly states what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 retrieving commit statuses but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_pipelines' or 'get_commit'. No when-not or alternative references are provided, so the context is only implied by the resource type.

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