gitlab_search_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation scoped to a project. However, it does not mention pagination, return format, authorization needs, or how the optional 'search' parameter affects behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The resource and endpoint are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and easy to parse.

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 simple list-style endpoint, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any explanation of what the 'search' parameter does and what the response contains. An agent could probably invoke the tool correctly for basic use, but would lack context for filtering or interpreting results.

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 only 50%; projectId is documented, but the 'search' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description also does not explain the search behavior, so an agent gets no added meaning for the optionally critical parameter beyond the tool name.

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 resource ('Project labels') and the exact API path, making the tool's purpose understandable at a glance. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'search', the GET endpoint and tool name strongly imply retrieving labels for a project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes other GitLab tools like gitlab_search, but the description does not explain how this label-specific search differs or when to prefer it.

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