gitlab_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'accessible' means (e.g., based on permissions). This leaves gaps for safe agent operation.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a list tool with good schema coverage.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a read-only list tool with full parameter documentation. However, it lacks context on output format (e.g., structure of returned projects) and behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, which could hinder agent effectiveness.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a list operation, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter details effectively.

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 ('GitLab projects') with the scope 'accessible to the user', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_project (singular) and gitlab_list_groups (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with gitlab_list_groups or other list tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over gitlab_list_groups for group-based projects or gitlab_get_project for a specific project, nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication or context for filtering.

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