search_repositories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for GitLab projects' and does not describe result behavior, pagination defaults beyond the schema, search syntax nuances, authentication needs, or any side effects. It is minimally implied to be read-only, but lacks meaningful 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, short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive. It is readable and front-loaded, yet lacks enough substance to be considered well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the tool is not fully contextualized. Important aspects like return format, result structure, and when to choose this over sibling search tools are absent, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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 100%, and each parameter (query, page, perPage) is already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the resource context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('GitLab projects'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_code, search_issues, and search_users. It is clear but minimal, and could be slightly more explicit about what kind of projects and search scope is covered.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_code, search_issues, or search_users. The description merely states the action without explaining selection criteria, exclusions, or related tools.

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