Project statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds the specific data fields returned (languages, contributors, repository size), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any edge cases, permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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, tightly worded sentence that lists the three key data categories. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only statistics tool.

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?

Considering the tool's low complexity (one parameter), strong annotations (read-only), and complete schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what data is returned. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about return format might be expected, but the description's brevity fits the simplicity of the tool.

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 already fully documents the sole parameter 'project_id' with a description including examples and fallback behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 'Languages, contributors and repository size for a project' clearly identifies the resource (project) and the type of data returned (statistics). It implies a retrieval operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. The specific data categories distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as when needing repository size or contributor breakdowns. The tool name and siblings imply it, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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