gitlab_get_issue_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that include_base64 triggers downloading images, returning base64, and attaching MCP content blocks. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network timeouts or permission requirements, which would push it to a 5.

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 consists of two concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a conditional behavior. No redundant words or tangential details.

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?

Given 5 parameters, an output schema, and reasonable complexity, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks details like default values for max_images or the format of image references, which would make it more complete. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for include_base64 but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema says. The schema descriptions are already quite detailed (e.g., project_id usage rules), so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 extracts image references from issue description/notes, with a specific verb-noun combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_issue, which retrieves issue fields, and gitlab_get_issue_notes, which gets notes. The mention of include_base64 behavior further clarifies the scope.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this tool is for extracting images versus getting the full issue or notes. A user would have to infer usage from the description and sibling names.

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