List GitLab issues

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

Description indicates search/list behavior and one-project scope. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false) corroborates a read/search operation and do not conflict. But behavior detail such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or relation to labels is not detailed.

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?

One sentence, two lines, front-loaded with action (List/search + scope + filters). Everything earns its place, and the JSON schema covers the parameter details. Highly concise.

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?

Reasonable input schema (15 params but only one description, and output undefined? With annotations, siblings in the environment, output schema present). But no prerequisites, edge cases, and not enough details about interactions/project context. Very important for once!

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?

Only 1 of 15 parameters (project) has a meaningful description; most of the parameters (page, per_page, sort, search, labels, etc.) rely on the schema alone, whose coverage is only 7 percent. The description does not make up for such low 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?

States a specific action (list/search) on a specific resource (issues in one GitLab project) and includes common triage filters. Distinguishes from siblings? It is not explicit, but the single project scope and filter set imply boundaries. Sibling list_global_issues may cover all projects; this description is scoped, but no alternatives are explicitly mentioned.

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?

Provides clear context for use ('common triage filters') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_global_issues, get_issue and search_issues.

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