Get group deploy token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the call returns a wrapper around a DeployToken model and raises ParameterError/MissingParameterError on bad input, which is modest but real context 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?

It is front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring block is boilerplate, and the **kwargs line is filler rather than schema-relevant detail. Structure is legible without being tight.

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 11 parameters, zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain identity vs filter parameters and pagination. Instead it claims group_id/deploy_token_id are needed while the schema marks nothing required, leaving the agent with a genuine ambiguity about minimal valid input.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load — and it does not. It mentions only group_id and deploy_token_id in a generic **kwargs gloss and is silent on name, token, scopes, username, expires_at, page, per_page and max_pages, which look like filter/pagination arguments that materially change behavior.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving a single deploy token scoped to a group. That distinguishes it from the list-style sibling gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens only by inference from 'specific', not by explicit contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens, gitlab_get_project_deploy_token, or gitlab_deploy_tokens_get, all of which appear as siblings. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'specific'.

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