gitlab_project_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description usefully adds that results are permission-scoped to the current token. It says nothing further about result shape or paging, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover those.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint and the usage condition front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 search tool with an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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 100%, so page, perPage, and search are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by name' adds marginal meaning about what the search string matches, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search projects), the matching field (by name), and the scope constraint (visible to this token). This is enough for an agent to separate it from gitlab_project_get, which requires an exact path.

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 an explicit trigger condition — 'when the exact project path is unknown' — which implies the alternative (fetching a project by path). It stops short of naming the sibling tool outright, but the decision rule is unambiguous.

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