Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, which is useful, but omits other behavioral details like whether it is read-only, permissions, or response format. The pagination note provides some value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and the parenthetical about pagination adds useful context without waste. 'and more' is slightly vague but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally describe return values or pagination behavior in more detail. It only notes 'paginated' without specifics, and does not mention the optional projectId's purpose. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks sufficient context for a search tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and an enum for scope, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of specific scopes echoes the schema but adds no new semantic meaning to the 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 searches for projects, issues, merge requests, and more, which aligns with the 'search' verb and differentiates it from sibling list/get tools. The phrase 'and more' is vague but acceptable given the schema's scope enum.

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?

The description implies this tool is for cross-resource search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like gitlab_list_projects or gitlab_get_issues. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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