gitlab_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List' without explicitly indicating that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose potential pagination, return format, or performance implications. The description is not misleading but lacks transparency beyond the surface-level action.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 operation with one optional parameter, the description captures the core purpose but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage guidance. Given the minimal schema and absent annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete—missing details about what projects are included (e.g., archived, owned vs. accessible) and the meaning of the limit parameter.

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 defines a single 'limit' parameter with default/min/max but no description. The tool description never mentions this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'GitLab projects' and scope 'visible to the configured token.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project (single project details) and gitlab_list_merge_requests/gitlab_list_pipelines (other resources).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that gitlab_get_project should be used for individual project details, nor does it describe typical use cases or filtering options. The description only states the basic function without any context-driven recommendations.

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