Project Issues

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the '(read-only)' parenthetical is redundant. The description doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'issues' specifically includes (open/closed, filtered, etc.).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential 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 read-only query tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., issue fields, format, or pagination structure). Given the sibling tools include multiple issue-related alternatives, more contextual differentiation would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'projectPath' and other issue-retrieval tools). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Get issues') and resource ('from a specific GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'get_user_issues' that also retrieve issues, missing the opportunity to clarify this tool's specific scope.

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 like 'search_issues' or 'get_user_issues'. While it mentions 'read-only' (which is redundant with annotations), it lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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