list_ci_catalog_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only claim is partially redundant. However, the description adds genuine value by enumerating error behaviors — missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits returned as errors — and by scoping results to what is 'visible to the user'. This is context not present in the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and selection logic before behavioral and parameter notes. The final sentence is mild boilerplate but not wasteful; nothing essential is buried or padded.

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?

For an all-optional, 8-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, safety profile, error semantics, and parameter format guidance. The absence of return-shape details is excusable given no output schema exists; the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations fill remaining gaps.

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 8 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description attempts to add guidance about numeric IDs vs URL-encoded paths, but references project_id and group_id which are not actual parameters in this schema (only group_ids exists), slightly diluting the value. The instruction to follow pagination fields 'as documented' adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List GitLab CI/CD Catalog resources/components visible to the user') and explicitly contrasts itself with the single-resource 'get tool', which in context is get_ci_catalog_resource. An agent can immediately tell this is the collection-list counterpart and distinguish it from its sibling.

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?

It gives explicit selection guidance: use this for a collection of resources, and 'choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect.' This names the alternative and the decision condition, leaving little to inference.

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