Get project deploy tokens

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful return information, saying it returns a wrapper containing the original response and DeployToken models, and lists possible parameter errors, but it omits pagination behavior and permission requirements relevant to this list operation.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before structured Args/Returns/Raises sections. The Args section is low-value boilerplate because **kwargs does not map cleanly to the actual schema, but overall it is not verbose.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the return wrapper and error types, but leaves most filtering and pagination parameters undocumented, so an agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.

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 parameter meaning, but it only mentions **kwargs and gives project_id as an example. It does not explain the available filters such as name, token, scopes, group_id, username, expires_at, or pagination parameters like page, per_page, and max_pages.

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 states a clear verb and resource: getting deploy tokens for a specific project. It is clear from the name and text that this is project-scoped, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gitlab_get_deploy_tokens or gitlab_get_project_deploy_token.

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 instead of alternatives such as gitlab_get_deploy_tokens, gitlab_get_project_deploy_token, or gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens. The project-specific scope is implied, but there are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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