Search Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context about pagination, rate limits, or authentication fallback details beyond what the input schema provides.

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, complete sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, containing no filler or redundant information. It earns its place.

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 5 parameters with pagination logic and no output schema, the description is minimal. The input schema compensates with parameter descriptions, but the overall context of return format (e.g., list of project fields) is missing. Scores adequately as the schema handles most completeness needs.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the general purpose.

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 'Search', the resource 'GitLab projects', and the scope 'by name or description'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project (single project by ID) and search_gitlab (general search) without ambiguity.

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 name/description searches, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project, get_projects, or search_gitlab. No when-not or exclusion criteria are stated.

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