List Commit Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond a basic 'list' operation, missing pagination, response format, or filtering nuances.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail for effective tool usage, striking a balance between brevity and utility.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify return data, filtering options, or pagination, relying entirely on annotations for safety cues.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., sha, ref, name, stage). The minimal text adds no value beyond the schema structure, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter usage.

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 states the verb 'list' and resource 'statuses for a commit,' indicating a specific read operation. However, it does not differentiate among siblings like gitlab_get_commit or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs, as the scope is narrow.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as requiring a commit SHA.

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