Find GitLab Actions

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description earns credit for disclosing output traits beyond the annotations: it returns action names, purpose descriptions, and parameter schemas, and it bounds prompt cost ('<500 tokens'). It does not discuss pagination or empty-result behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by return contents and the context-budget claim. Every sentence is relevant, though the '<500 tokens while retaining 100% coverage' phrasing leans slightly promotional rather than operational.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: action names, purpose descriptions, and parameter schemas, with the format parameter governing structure. Combined with the annotation coverage and fully documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, with enums and defaults documented for query, domain, format, page, and per_page, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the general notion that results carry parameter schemas; it contributes no syntax, matching, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 pair (search/discover) and a specific resource (available GitLab operations across the platform), and explicitly frames itself as the discovery counterpart to the sibling gitlab_execute_action. An agent can distinguish this lookup tool from the execution tool without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'for use with gitlab_execute_action' and 'on-demand' clearly implies the intended workflow: discover an action's name and schema here, then execute it there. There is no explicit when-not condition or named alternative search path, so it falls short of a 5, but the routing context is unambiguous.

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