gitlab_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior — default membership scoping and a simplified payload — but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or any read-only/authorization context, leaving meaningful 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (default membership and simple payload) is front-loaded. It is a model of concise, scannable tool documentation.

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?

This is a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context for correct invocation. It gives the default call behavior but omits pagination, filtering guidance, and the shape of the returned payload, making it incomplete for an agent deciding between or configuring parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for many undocumented parameters. It only addresses defaults for membership and simple, while page, sort, owned, search, visibility, starred, archived, and others receive no guidance from the description.

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?

States an explicit verb and resource ('Lists projects') and even cites the endpoint (GET /projects). It also communicates default scoping ('user's membership, simple payload'), which clearly separates it from sibling list tools like gitlab_list_merge_requests or gitlab_list_project_members.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The 'Defaults to the user's membership' line hints at a primary use case but never tells the agent when to prefer this over gitlab_search or other GitLab list tools.

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