List Issues

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure. Since annotations do the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). While conciseness is generally good, it comes at the cost of informativeness, making it borderline under-specified. A balance should be struck.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., gitlab_search_issues), the description is woefully incomplete. An agent requires more context about parameter functions, filtering behavior, pagination, and how the output relates to other issue tools.

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% for 7 parameters, but the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain that project_id is required, nor does it describe the purpose of filters like state, labels, search, assignee_id, page, or per_page. This is a critical gap as the agent must rely solely on schema types and enums, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'issues for a GitLab project', which distinguishes it from tools like gitlab_get_issue (single issue) and gitlab_search_issues (search/filter). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings that also list issues for a project, such as gitlab_list_group_issues, which lists issues across groups.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or how it compares to gitlab_search_issues or other listing tools. The description is too terse to inform usage decisions.

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