gitlab_search_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or scope (e.g., project vs group).

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to convey necessary details, which limits its effectiveness. It is not verbose but under-specified.

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 has 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, behavior, and scope. It fails to do so, making it incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description ('通用') adds minimal semantic insight beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide examples.

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 '在 GitLab 项目中全局搜索代码 (通用)' clearly indicates the tool performs a global code search within a GitLab project. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file or gitlab_list_mrs, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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