gitlab_project_issues

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

The description says 'Read-only', but readOnlyHint=true already declares that, so it adds nothing beyond the annotation. No mention of pagination behavior, default result size, filtering semantics, or what happens for missing projects, leaving the behavioral burden entirely on structured fields.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is internal implementation commentary about endpoint declarations and 'costing no code' that gives an agent no actionable information and dilutes the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a list tool with three undocumented filter parameters the description should at minimum cover filtering and pagination semantics. Instead it omits both and spends its second sentence on irrelevant meta-commentary.

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 only 50%: state, labels and search are $ref aliases with no documentation at all. The description does not explain these filters (valid state values, label syntax, search scope), so it fails to compensate for the gap and adds no meaning over the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List a project's issues'), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings such as gitlab_issue_get or gitlab_project_search, and the second sentence muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint at context is the cryptic remark about merge-request tools, which does not tell an agent when this listing is the right call versus gitlab_project_search or gitlab_raw_api.

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