Get latest release evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully by disclosing the return shape (a wrapper containing the original response plus raw evidence data) and the raised error types, which is real value given there is no output schema. It omits anything about pagination or why the response is wrapped.

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 docstring format is front-loaded and the Returns and Raises sections earn their place, but the Args section is a single generic line that adds no information. It is not bloated, just partially empty structure.

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 a 20-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin; an agent cannot determine which of the many optional properties matter or what the returned "evidence" contains. It also claims project_id is required (MissingParameterError) while the schema marks nothing required, leaving requiredness ambiguous.

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?

Twenty parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description covers only project_id inside a misleading "**kwargs" framing, implying an arbitrary keyword bag when the schema actually defines 20 fixed named properties. Parameters such as ref, tag_name, simple, include_html_description, max_pages, and api_parameters get no meaning at all, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource are stated ("Get evidence for the latest release in a project"), but the key term "evidence" is never explained, so an agent cannot tell what it actually retrieves. Nothing distinguishes it from the closely named siblings gitlab_get_latest_release, gitlab_get_latest_release_asset, and gitlab_create_release_evidence.

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 tool versus gitlab_get_latest_release or gitlab_create_release_evidence, and no prerequisites beyond the implied project scope. The only guidance is the error list, which tells the agent what fails rather than when to pick this tool.

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