search_project_tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that the operation is read-only, or any potential rate limits or performance implications. The tool is search-like and likely safe, but the description provides no explicit statement about side effects or restrictions.

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 very concise, containing only one short sentence. It states a clear purpose without fluff. However, it might be too sparse to capture usage nuances, but it does earn its place by defining the core action.

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 the presence of a global search sibling (search_global_tool) and many list tools, the description does not provide enough context to guide tool selection. It doesn't mention output schema details or any limitations. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help the agent understand what results to expect or how pagination works.

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 has 100% field coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or special cases like pagination behavior. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('search') and the scope ('within a specific GitLab project'), which distinguishes it from the global search tool. However, it doesn't specify the search scope or types of results, leaving some ambiguity about what 'search' entails beyond the schema.

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 like search_global_tool or list_* tools. The description implies project-scoped search, but doesn't explicitly contrast it with broader searches or provide exclusion criteria. The user must infer when to choose this over its siblings.

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