list_ci_catalog_resources

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that results are limited to resources 'visible to the user', which aligns with readOnlyHint. However, it does not add further context about pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or scope of visibility. It meets the minimum expectation but does not exceed it.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention that the list is paginated (though parameters 'first' and 'after' exist), nor does it describe filtering capabilities like group_ids or topics that are in the schema. The description is adequate but could provide more high-level context for a complete understanding.

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 does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. For example, it does not clarify the usage of 'scope' or 'verification_level' filters.

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 lists GitLab CI/CD Catalog resources/components visible to the user, specifying the exact resource type. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_projects or list_issues, and complements get_ci_catalog_resource which retrieves a single resource.

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 browsing catalog resources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ci_catalog_resource for a specific resource, or mention any prerequisites or limitations. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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