Iterations

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 value by mentioning the Premium/Ultimate requirement, which is a behavioral trait (access control) not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination handling (implied by 'after' parameter) or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (covering safety), and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and a critical requirement, but could improve by hinting at output (e.g., 'returns a list with cadence details') or pagination behavior, given the 'after' parameter. Still, it's adequate for a read-only list tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'cadence info' in relation to parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'List iterations (sprints) for a group with cadence info.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('iterations/sprints'), and scope ('for a group'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_milestones' or 'search_gitlab' which might also retrieve iteration-like data, preventing a perfect score.

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 clear context for usage: 'Requires GitLab Premium/Ultimate.' This indicates a prerequisite, helping the agent know when the tool is applicable. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_gitlab' for iterations or 'list_milestones' for similar time-based groupings, so it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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