List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavior of omitting IDs to get instance-wide issues, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or filter semantics, which are relevant for a list tool. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then lists the scope options and mentions filters. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague filler.

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 22 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief to be complete. It does not explain how to combine filters, default pagination behavior, or how project_id falls back to environment variables, all of which are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The description leaves too much implicit.

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 only 45%, with many parameters (e.g., updated_after, author_username, assignee_username) undocumented. The description says 'usual filters' but does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters or clarifying their semantics. The description adds minimal value over the sparse schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists issues, with scoping to project, group, or whole instance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_issue (single issue) and gitlab_create_issue. The verb 'lists' and resource 'issues' are specific, and the scope options are explicitly mentioned.

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 provides clear context on which scopes are available (project, group, instance) and how to select the instance-wide scope by omitting IDs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for a straightforward list operation.

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