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, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't explain pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, or authentication needs (though 'userCredentials' is documented in the schema). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste—every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the search scope.

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 (search with pagination and optional credentials), annotations cover safety aspects, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or result format. This leaves gaps in understanding what the search yields, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use confidently without trial.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify search syntax or result ordering). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Search for GitLab projects by name or description.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('GitLab projects'), and search scope ('by name or description'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_gitlab' or 'get_projects,' which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_gitlab' (which might be broader) or 'get_projects' (which might list all projects), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context for this specific search tool.

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