List group projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavior of optional subgroup recursion, which is not evident from annotations alone. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or other nuances like how 'all_pages' interacts with 'limit', leaving some behavioral aspects unsaid.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and the optional recursion behavior, earning every word. There is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and a rich schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the essential purpose and a key option (subgroup recursion). However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state that results are a list of projects or mention pagination defaults, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward listing tool. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema handles most parameter semantics. The description indirectly clarifies 'include_subgroups' by mentioning 'recursing into subgroups', which adds value beyond the bare schema. Other parameters like 'search' and 'archived' remain undocumented in both schema and description, but since coverage is above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Projects inside a group, optionally recursing into subgroups' clearly identifies the resource (projects in a group) and action (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects which lists all projects. The specific mention of group scoping and subgroup recursion leaves no ambiguity about what the tool covers.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need projects within a specific group. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_projects for all projects, gitlab_get_group for group metadata). The description does not state exclusions or preferences, so it relies on the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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