Search GitLab

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the search scope (global/group/project) and entity types. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination semantics, the role of the 'ref' parameter, or default scope behavior when no group/project is specified, leaving some behavioral details to the schema.

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 verb 'search' and the resource scope, then efficiently lists the searchable entity types. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview of what it searches and the available scoping. The schema covers parameter-specific details, and annotations confirm it is a safe read operation. It could mention pagination or global default behavior, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations gives enough context for correct invocation.

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%, meaning all 9 parameters have individual descriptions that already explain their purpose and constraints. The tool description's mention of entity types mirrors the scope enum but does not add deeper parameter-level meaning. With the schema handling parameter semantics thoroughly, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool is for searching GitLab globally, by group, or by project, and enumerates the entity types it covers: projects, issues, merge requests, code blobs, commits, wiki, and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get individual resources, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for cross-entity search, and the scope options (global, group, project) suggest when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over specific list or get tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The presence of a dedicated search tool among siblings makes it inferable, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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