list_work_package_gitlab_issues

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond annotations: results are complete in one call with no pagination, and an empty list is ambiguous because an unconfigured GitLab integration and a genuinely unlinked work package are indistinguishable in OpenProject's API. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/idempotentHint cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct non-obvious fact (no pagination, empty-result ambiguity, no single-item endpoint). Zero filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers invocation and interpretation caveats well. Its only gap is that no return shape is described and there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what fields each linked issue carries.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the integer-or-display-id ('PROJ-51') distinction. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List all GitLab issues linked to a work package') and explicitly rules out sibling shapes by noting no single-item get_gitlab_issue endpoint exists upstream. An agent can tell this apart from the nearest siblings (list_work_package_gitlab_merge_requests, list_work_package_github_pull_requests) on the resource alone.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the call is unpaginated, so no offset/limit should be attempted, and it explains that the tool is the only available shape for this resource. It does not explicitly address when to prefer the merge-request/GitHub-PR siblings, so it stops just short of naming alternatives the way a 5 would.

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