Get Project Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it uses a single GraphQL query, which is a performance trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like data freshness, pagination handling, or error conditions. With annotations carrying most behavioral information, the description provides marginal additional context.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, but could benefit from a brief structure separating what it returns from parameter hints. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return format or structure. It only says 'aggregate a project dashboard' without clarifying what fields or how results are organized. This leaves significant gaps for an agent understanding the tool's full capability.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (project_id, issue_limit, etc.), the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints for project_id or the effect of limit parameters.

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 aggregates project dashboard data including open merge requests, open issues, recent pipelines, and attention highlights. The verb 'Aggregate' and listing of specific data types distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_issues' or 'gitlab_get_project'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues, gitlab_list_merge_requests, gitlab_list_pipelines), but the description does not explain what scenario justifies using an aggregate tool over fetching individual lists.

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