List Achievements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing an instance-level enablement requirement and the single-page semantics of the recipient previews. It leaves out auth fallback behavior (covered by the schema) and any rate-limit or result-size caveats.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then the hard prerequisite, then the one non-obvious semantic caveat. Every sentence carries usable 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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite, pagination model, and the subtle preview behavior — enough to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what the returned achievement records contain, though the annotations relieve it of explaining safety.

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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by disambiguating includeRecipients — clarifying that each achievement gets only one page of recipient previews and that each preview carries its own pageInfo, which prevents an agent from assuming previews are fully paginated. It adds nothing for the remaining parameters, which the schema already documents well.

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 and resource ("List group achievements") plus the retrieval mechanism (cursor pagination), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings like create_achievement, award_achievement, and revoke_achievement. It never names a sibling or a scope boundary explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Adds a real precondition ("Requires Achievements to be enabled on the GitLab instance") and signals that recipient previews are a bounded single page rather than a full expansion, which helps an agent decide whether to set includeRecipients. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many list_* and search_* siblings.

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