List GitLab group projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds filter category names but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not reveal additional behavior like pagination defaults or permission implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key filter dimensions without redundant words. Every phrase adds meaningful information, making it highly concise and structurally effective.

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?

With 13 parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description provides a serviceable high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail to fully understand all parameter semantics. The output schema covers return values, but the description doesn't explain relationships between filters or the meaning of specific parameters like min_access_level and with_shared. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully sufficient for confident invocation without additional schema exploration.

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 only 8% (only 'group' has a description). The description mentions high-level filter categories (subgroup, membership, visibility, archive, search, ordering) but does not map these to the 13 parameters or explain nuanced ones like min_access_level, with_shared, or pagination controls. It partially compensates for the sparse schema but leaves many parameter meanings ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in a GitLab group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_groups (which lists groups) and get_group (which fetches a single group). The scoping to a GitLab group and the enumeration of filter categories makes 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?

Usage context is implied: use when you need to list projects within a specific GitLab group with filtering options. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_projects or list_groups, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is clear but no direct decision support is provided.

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