boj_gitlab_list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List GitLab project issues' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured documentation about parameters, behavior, or return values. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for reliable tool 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 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' represents, what format it expects, or what the 'state' enum values mean in context.

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 'List GitLab project issues' clearly states the action (list) and resource (GitLab project issues), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'boj_gitlab_list_projects' or other listing tools in the server, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for listing (e.g., boj_gitlab_list_projects, boj_gitlab_list_mrs, boj_gitlab_list_pipelines) and no indication of when this specific issue-listing tool is appropriate versus other GitLab or GitHub issue tools.

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