Project Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds confirmation ('read-only') but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements. For a read operation, the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint (read-only). It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read tool with good annotations and schema coverage. However, without an output schema, it lacks details about what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields like name, description, visibility). This omission reduces completeness for an agent deciding if this tool returns the needed data.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as examples or format clarifications. Thus, the default baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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), resource (detailed information about a specific GitLab project), and a key trait (read-only). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_projects' (which lists projects) by focusing on a single project identified by fullPath.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_projects' or 'get_projects'. It implies usage via the name and context (get a specific project), but lacks 'when not to use' or direction to sibling tools.

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