gitlab_search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and states it 'degrades gracefully', implying error handling. It also highlights the requirement for Advanced Search, which is critical behavior. However, it could mention what happens when the requirement is not met or provide more detail on rate limits or pagination.

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 at three sentences, with the most important information first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and a critical requirement. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavior, it omits parameter explanations and does not describe the output schema (which exists). The 'degrades gracefully' phrase is vague. Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description could be more thorough without being long.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the parameters: query, limit, and project. It only mentions that it searches code, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters, especially without schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'code (blobs)', and the scope 'across GitLab'. It clearly identifies the tool as read-only and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for repos not checked out locally, contrasting with other GitLab tools that handle specific files or diffs.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (repos not checked out locally) and when to prefer alternatives (Claude's native Grep/Glob for local repos). It also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Advanced Search on the instance'), helping the agent avoid failures.

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