gitlab_list_projects

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

Description is minimal with no annotations provided. It only states 'list', implying read-only operation, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any other behavioral traits. The agent learns nothing beyond the tool's basic action.

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 concise (one sentence, 3 words), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not overly long, but it lacks structure such as examples or clarifications. A score of 3 reflects that it is not verbose but also not sufficiently helpful.

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 output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a listing tool, critical context is missing, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema has two parameters ('search', 'per_page') with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description adds no information about these parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'search' filters on or what 'per_page' controls without additional context. Baseline is 1 because description provides zero value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List GitLab projects', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling listing tools like github_list_repos or railway_list_projects, which also list projects/repos. The name itself provides differentiation, but the description lacks distinguishing context.

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. Sibling tools include multiple project/repo listing tools, so an agent would need to infer usage from the name alone. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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