List Projects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'list' adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination, the nature of the response (list), or any side effects beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the parameter complexity.

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 the tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and only sparse annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits essential context like pagination, filtering, sorting, and the scope of 'available to the current user'. This inadequacy is notable for a read-only listing tool.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for 15 parameters. The tool description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of parameters like 'sort', 'owned', 'topic', etc. This is a critical gap.

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 tool lists projects available to the current user, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'projects' with a scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_project (single project) or gitlab_list_group_projects (group-filtered).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_project, gitlab_list_group_projects, or gitlab_search_repositories. It does not mention when not to use it or offer any contextual hints for selection.

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