Project Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds '(read-only)' which reinforces but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the schema, or what 'detailed information' entails.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific GitLab project') and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose and read-only nature. However, without an output schema, it could better hint at what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., metadata, settings) to aid the agent in understanding return values.

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 both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'detailed information' or usage nuances for 'userCredentials'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific GitLab project'), with the parenthetical '(read-only)' reinforcing the operation type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_projects' (plural/list) and 'search_projects' by specifying retrieval of detailed information for a single project.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed project information, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_projects' (list) or 'search_projects' (filtered search). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the required 'fullPath' parameter suggests it's for known projects.

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