List CI jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add scoping context, which it does ('of a pipeline or of the whole project'). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or that results may be large, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

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 exceptionally short, which is a plus for conciseness, but it's a sentence fragment rather than a full instruction. It conveys the core distinction without wasted words, though it could be phrased as a complete sentence.

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 annotations covering safety and a high-coverage schema, the minimal description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation. However, it doesn't mention whether it returns all jobs by default or if project_id falls back to environment variables, but these are in the schema. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, pagination), a bit more context would help.

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 86%, so the schema provides most parameter meanings. The description itself adds no parameter details; the scope parameter lacks a description, but the enum values are self-explanatory. Thus, the description doesn't add value beyond the high-coverage 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?

Description states 'Jobs of a pipeline or of the whole project,' which clearly indicates the resource (CI jobs) and the two scoping modes. While it lacks an explicit verb, the tool title 'List CI jobs' provides that, and it distinguishes from sibling job tools like get_job_log and job_action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as gitlab_get_job_log or gitlab_job_action. The description only states the two possible scopes, leaving the choice of tool entirely to the agent without any contextual cues.

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