List Project Snippets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing which fields come back, effectively signaling that snippet file contents are not included. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits, which matters given page/per_page parameters.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no wasted words and the resource scoping front-loaded. It is arguably under-sized for a tool with three undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 read-only list tool this is close, and the field enumeration partially substitutes for the missing output schema. However, three fully undocumented parameters and no pagination guidance leave real gaps that a slightly longer description could close.

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% for three parameters, so the schema alone tells the agent nothing about what page, per_page, or project_id mean. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the project identifier requirement or pagination, leaving the agent to infer both.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a project's snippets'), and even enumerates the fields surfaced (title, visibility, author, file names). An agent can distinguish it from the singular gitlab_get_project_snippet without opening the schema, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — listing snippets scoped to one project. There is no guidance on when to prefer gitlab_get_project_snippet for a single snippet, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no mention of paging through results.

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