Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the concrete config location (XDG config.json, 'gitlab_instances' key), the guarantee that tokens are never returned, and the single-host fallback behavior – all things an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 action ('List the configured GitLab tenants') is front-loaded in the first sentence and the subsequent sentences supply only supporting context about config location and fallback. Slightly dense with internal jargon (CONCEPT:AU-KG..., 'client factory'), but nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description does well to indicate the return content is instance names with tokens excluded, and to disclose where the data comes from and what happens when config is absent. The main gap is the unresolved get-vs-list semantics for the 'name' parameter, which is precisely what an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100%, so the single 'name' parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds that the name is the tenant identifier consumed by the client factory of other gitlab-api tools, which gives meaning to the value, but it does not clarify the semantic difference between supplying a name versus leaving it empty.

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 says it lists configured GitLab tenants and explains the multi-tenancy concept, which identifies the resource well. However the tool is named 'gitlab_instances_get' with a 'name' parameter for action='get', while the description describes a listing operation, and a sibling 'gitlab_instances_list' exists – the boundary between the two is never resolved, leaving the agent unsure whether this fetches one instance or enumerates all.

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?

It gives useful implied guidance: use it to discover tenant names that other gitlab-api tools need, and the GITLAB_URL/GITLAB_TOKEN fallback is noted. But it never states when to choose this over the sibling gitlab_instances_list, nor whether the 'name' parameter selects a single instance, leaving the selection rule to inference.

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