Project Issues

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

The description states 'read-only', which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). However, it adds no further behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. No contradictions are present.

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 concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be considered too terse, lacking any structure like bullet points or additional context.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues with fields). It does not mention return values or pagination behavior. With six parameters and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting all six parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context for any parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'issues from a specific GitLab project', making the core action and scope understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_user_issues' or 'search_issues', which could confuse an agent about which tool to choose.

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, such as when to prefer 'get_issues' over 'get_user_issues' or 'search_issues'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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