Search GitLab repository code

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds project/blob scope but does not disclose pagination behavior, ref defaults, or result limits beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase contributes either to tool scope or query semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 5-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but omits ref and pagination context that would help an agent handle non-default search scenarios reliably.

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 low at 20%, but the description adds meaning for the 'search' parameter and confirms project scoping. However, 'ref', 'page', and 'per_page' remain undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('blobs'), and the scope ('a specific GitLab project'), which distinguishes it from generic tools like search_gitlab and search_projects.

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?

It provides useful guidance on what kinds of query terms to use ('plain code terms, filenames, symbols, or error text'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling search tools or mention exclusions such as cross-project search.

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