List accessible GitLab issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'recent' and 'visible to the connected user' context, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or result ordering beyond what the schema implies. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the key differentiator (account-wide scope). It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage guidance.

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 has 16 parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return format (though output schema exists), nor does it clarify how filters interact or whether pagination is required. For a complex tool with many filters, more guidance would be helpful, but the annotations and schema carry significant weight.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'account-wide triage filters' without detailing any of the 16 parameters. The schema itself has enums and defaults that provide some meaning, but the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is justified because the schema is rich, but the description does not help disambiguate parameter usage.

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 lists recent issues across all projects visible to the connected user, with account-wide triage filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues (which likely operates within a single project) by emphasizing the global scope, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 account-wide issue triage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_issues or search_gitlab. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, though the global scope is a clear contextual signal.

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