List Group Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'for a group and its descendant projects' provides some scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or how results are aggregated across projects. More detail on output behavior would improve transparency.

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 and very concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It does not cover parameters or usage guidance, so while it is not verbose, it is under-informative.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is overly minimal. It omits pagination, filtering, and differentiation from similar tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues). The description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., group_id, state, labels, search). The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which has no property descriptions, making it difficult to use correctly.

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 issues for a group and its descendant projects, specifying the scope (group and descendants) and the action (list). This distinguishes it from project-level issue listing (e.g., gitlab_list_issues) but could be more explicit about what 'issues' entails. The verb 'List' is specific.

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 like gitlab_search_issues or gitlab_list_issues. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference siblings. The description lacks any usage context.

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