List Group Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or response format. With annotations present, the description does not add value.

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 very concise (one sentence) but under-specified given the five parameters. While it wastes no words, it lacks necessary details on parameters and usage. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but incomplete.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and annotations only cover safety, the description should at least mention pagination, search, and subgroup inclusion. It does not, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'List projects within a group' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (projects within a group). It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_search_projects or gitlab_list_accessible_projects by scoping to a specific group. However, it's slightly tautological with the tool name and lacks detail on scope (e.g., all projects, filtered?).

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 (e.g., gitlab_search_projects, gitlab_list_accessible_projects). No context on prerequisites or when not to use. The description provides zero usage direction.

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