Get group deploy tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the response wrapper and possible ParameterError/MissingParameterError exceptions, but it does not explain pagination behavior or filtering effects.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the overall description is short. The Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate is somewhat noisy, and the '**kwargs' framing is misleading given the explicit schema, but the description remains reasonably concise.

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?

For an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It says the response wraps a list of DeployToken models but never explains the available filters, pagination controls, or how group_id selects the target group.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. Instead, it only mentions '**kwargs' and gives group_id as an example, leaving name, page, per_page, token, scopes, username, expires_at, project_id, max_pages, and api_parameters completely undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get deploy tokens for a specific group.' This distinguishes it from project deploy token tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling gitlab_get_group_deploy_token, so it falls 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_group_deploy_token, gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens, or gitlab_get_deploy_tokens. It also provides no prerequisites or exclusions.

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