List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: where the data comes from (~/.config/agent-connector-sdk/config.json), that tokens are never returned, and the env-var fallback path.

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, but the opening 'List (gitlab_instances). List the configured...' restates the name/title, and the embedded '(CONCEPT:AU-KG.backend.declared-columns-so-schema)' tag is internal noise that does not help an agent act.

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 the right work by explaining what is returned (instance names, never tokens) and the config/fallback source. Only the odd 'name' parameter for a list operation remains unexplained.

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 documented structurally, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not mention the parameter at all, and notably the schema text ties 'name' to action='get', which the description never reconciles for a list tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the configured GitLab tenants') and explains that it surfaces instance NAMEs used by every other gitlab-api tool. It does not explicitly name gitlab_instances_get as the alternative for per-instance detail, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives clear context for when this matters: multi-tenancy comes from the XDG config, and callers need these names to target a tenant. It also notes the single-host GITLAB_URL/GITLAB_TOKEN fallback. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the get sibling.

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