gitlab_search

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

The explicit GET endpoints communicate that this is a read-only search operation, and the project/global distinction is genuinely behavioral. But with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention result shape, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with the key verb front-loaded and the API detail neatly parenthesized. Every word adds useful context and there is no repetition of schema information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description and schema together are minimally sufficient: an agent knows the required parameters, the allowed scopes, and the two invocation modes. However, it lacks return-value expectations, pagination behavior, and permission caveats, so it is not fully complete for autonomous use.

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 schema already describes scope and projectId, leaving only the search parameter undocumented at 67% coverage. The description adds route-level meaning by implying that projectId selects the project-scoped endpoint, which helps, but it does not describe the search term or query syntax, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 identifies the action as 'Search' and pinpoints the resource: a specific GitLab project or GitLab globally, reinforced by the concrete API routes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gitlab_search_labels, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful context by distinguishing project-scoped search from global search, which helps an agent decide between passing projectId or omitting it. However, it offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternative search tools like gitlab_search_labels, and it names no exclusions.

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