GitLab MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tool names and descriptions are highly specific about resource scope (project vs group vs global, pipeline vs job), so most tools are clearly distinguishable. The main confusion points are the trio of get_blob/get_file/fetch_gitlab_file_url (all fetch file content via different identifiers) and the overlapping search entry points (search_gitlab with a scope vs search_projects/search_code).
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool follows a strict verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_, list_, create_, update_, delete_, retry_, cancel_, approve_, protect_, unprotect_, etc. Even compound forms like merge_merge_request and take_ownership_pipeline_schedule follow the same convention, and paired tools (apply_*/batch_apply_*, retry_pipeline/retry_job) are uniformly named.
Tool Count1/5
147 tools is an extreme count that far exceeds the 50+ threshold and creates a serious agent-navigation burden. While GitLab is a large platform, many of these could be consolidated into parameterized operations (e.g., project vs group CI variable CRUD, release asset link CRUD), making the set unwieldy for reliable selection.
Completeness3/5
Core DevOps workflows are thoroughly covered: issues, merge requests, commits, files, pipelines, jobs, releases, schedules, CI variables, and approval rules all have near-full CRUD. However, several subdomains are read-only (projects, groups, labels, webhooks, environments, runners) and milestones, project creation, and webhook management are entirely absent, which is notable given the server's apparent ambition.
Average 3.7/5 across 145 of 147 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint: false is consistent with a create operation), but it also adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already declare. Nothing about what gets created server-side, duplicate handling, authentication requirements, or the side effects of registration is disclosed, leaving the burden of transparency entirely on absent structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the single sentence is technically short and front-loaded, this is under-specification, not conciseness. The description is no more informative than the tool's name and fails to earn its place by conveying any new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, a deeply nested inputs type, CRON expressions, and timezone handling. The output schema's existence relieves the description of documenting return values, but the description still fails to explain scheduling semantics, parameter constraints, or usage patterns. For a tool of this complexity, the complete lack of guidance is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 14% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented parameters (ref, cron, cron_timezone, inputs, active), but it remains silent on all of them. Even the essential CRON format and the meaning of 'ref' are left unexplained, forcing the agent to guess at proper values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a project pipeline schedule.' merely restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding only the word 'project.' It is essentially a tautology that provides the agent with no additional information about the operation's purpose or scope beyond what is already visible in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 create_pipeline, run_pipeline_schedule, or update_pipeline_schedule. There is no stated context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives—a notable omission given the rich set of sibling tools for scheduling and pipeline operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it lists groups 'visible to the connected user', which is useful, but fails to mention that it uses pagination (page/per_page) or the impact of min_access_level. No contradiction, but limited behavioral disclosure given no output schema context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key verb 'List'. However, it could be slightly longer to cover parameter semantics without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (9) with zero schema descriptions, and no output schema detail beyond its existence, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter interactions, default values, or pagination behavior, leaving agents to guess about filter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters. The description only mentions generic filter categories, not individual parameter meanings. For instance, no explanation of what top_level_only or all_available do, or how search differs from filtering by name. With 0 parameters described in the schema, the description must compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists groups visible to the connected user, with filters for membership, ownership, access-level, and search. It distinguishes from siblings like get_group (singular) and list_group_projects (different resource) though it could be more explicit about being read-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this over list_group_members or search_gitlab. The description implies it's the general groups listing, but doesn't discuss filtering, pagination, or when to use ownership vs all_available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that the tool does not return the former value, which is a specific behavioral detail. However, it does not mention other side effects, idempotency (which annotations indicate is false), or error conditions, leaving the agent with limited understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is highly concise and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but this comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is very sparse, lacking any contextual information about pipeline schedule variables, when deletion is appropriate, or potential consequences. It does not explain the relationship to pipeline schedules or provide examples, making it incomplete for robust usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not clarify any of the three parameters (project, pipeline_schedule_id, key). Only the schema provides a description for 'project', while the other two lack any semantic explanation, making it difficult for an agent to know what values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (pipeline schedule variable), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, such as when a variable needs to be removed without retrieving its value. It lacks context like prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with no idempotency hint (idempotentHint=false). The description does not clarify mutation behavior: it says 'update' but does not explain what happens to existing schedule parameters (e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared), whether the operation is destructive to existing inputs provided in a previous update, or whether partial updates are supported. With an openWorldHint=true, the description should clarify scope, but it fails to add behavioral context beyond 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it lacks substantive content, which slightly reduces the score from 5 to 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderate complexity with 7 parameters, a complex nested 'inputs' array, and an output schema. The description covers none of this: no mention of what parameters can be updated, no explanation of the 'inputs' structure (nested objects with 'destroy' flag for removing), no documentation of the 'cron' format or timezone, and no mention of the output. Annotations do not compensate, so the description is clearly insufficient for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, but the schema itself provides some documentation (e.g., 'project' has a description and defaults/notes exist for other fields like 'inputs' has nested structure, 'cron' and 'cron_timezone' are strings). The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema. Given the low schema coverage, a score of 3 reflects that the description does not help but also does not conflict; the burden is on the schema, which is somewhat incomplete (e.g., no description for 'inputs', 'destroy', 'cron_format').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a project pipeline schedule' states the verb (update), the resource (pipeline schedule), and the scope (project). It distinguishes this from related tools like list_pipeline_schedules, get_pipeline_schedule, create_pipeline_schedule, delete_pipeline_schedule, run_pipeline_schedule, and update_pipeline_schedule_variable, but does so only through the tool name; the description itself provides no explicit differentiation. A score of 3 reflects a clear purpose without added depth.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as create_pipeline_schedule_variable or run_pipeline_schedule. No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., the schedule must already exist, the user must have appropriate permissions), and no alternative tools are mentioned. The usage is only implied by the name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), but the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the effect of existing links. It simply says 'attach', which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified given the tool's complexity, so conciseness is good but at the expense of necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and no behavioral explanation, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, especially regarding parameter semantics and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the parameters. Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'project' has a description). With 6 parameters including 'name', 'url', 'tag_name', 'link_type', and 'direct_asset_path', the description should provide meaning or usage hints, but it contains none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Attach an external asset link to a GitLab release.' It specifies the verb (attach), resource (external asset link), and target (GitLab release), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_release_asset_links or delete_release_asset_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one might choose this over other asset link operations (e.g., update or delete). The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral hint is 'recent', which implies default limits or ordering, but the exact pagination behavior, default page size, and result ordering are left unspecified. Minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly-crafted 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and follows a clear Verb-Adjective-Noun-Preposition structure. Every word earns its place with zero fluff or redundancy. Slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, but as far as efficiency of expression goes, this is well done.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having rich annotations and an output schema to offload return-value documentation, the description still leaves significant gaps: job listing semantics across many pipelines, default pagination behavior, how 'recent' is defined, and how this differs from list_pipeline_jobs. With 7 parameters and 2 enums, the single-sentence description is not complete enough to prevent an agent from misusing default parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is a meager 14% (only 'project' is documented in-schema). With such low coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter interactions and defaults, but it only vaguely implies behavior via 'recent.' No context is given for how scope filters combine, what 'recent' means in terms of ordering, or how per_page/page work together. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource and scope: 'recent jobs across all pipelines in a GitLab project.' The phrase 'across all pipelines' meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling list_pipeline_jobs (which targets a single pipeline), though it stops short of naming alternatives explicitly. Clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many closely related siblings such as list_pipeline_jobs, list_pipeline_bridges, or get_job. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use context, no alternatives mentioned. Given the extensive sibling set with overlapping scopes, this omission forces agents to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is a write operation, which the description implies with 'Update'. The description adds the note 'without returning its value,' which is useful behavioral context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., pipeline schedule being affected) or error conditions. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. No fluff. It could be slightly more informative but is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which may clarify return), the description is minimal for a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations beyond truth flags. It lacks important context like whether the variable must already exist, what 'value' formats are allowed, and how variable_type affects the operation. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the absence of usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not elaborate on any parameters, such as 'key', 'value', 'variable_type', or 'pipeline_schedule_id'. It leaves the agent to infer meaning from names alone. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a pipeline schedule variable without returning its value' clearly identifies the action and resource. It is a specific enough purpose, but it lacks detail beyond the verb and resource. It is not a tautology, but it does not distinguish from siblings like create_pipeline_schedule_variable or delete_pipeline_schedule_variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it is for existing variables or that it differs from create or delete. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although the destructiveHint annotation is true, the description only says 'cancelable jobs' without specifying what happens to the running jobs, their associated resources, and whether cancellation is reversible. It does add context beyond the annotation but lacks explicit behavioral side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, immediately states the action and target, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward (two scalar parameters) and there is an output schema. However, it does not describe what happens to the canceled jobs or whether there are prerequisites; deeper context would improve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The project parameter is described with a helpful 'ID or full path' explanation, so 1/2 parameters get semantic coverage. The pipeline_id parameter lacks a description, but its type is an integer (ID), which is reasonably inferable. Since schema coverage is about 50%, description partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it cancels all cancelable jobs in a specified GitLab pipeline, using a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cancel_job tool, but the pipeline-level scope is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the context (running pipeline) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cancel_job for single-job cancellation, nor any exclusions based on job state or pipeline status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the description mentions the destructive nature implicitly via the verb 'delete', it does not explicitly state that the action is permanent or irreversible. The annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no extra context about side effects or the need for acknowledgment. The acknowledge_asset_link_deletion parameter is not mentioned, which is a significant behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and to the point, consisting of a single sentence. It wastes no words and gets straight to the core functionality. This is ideal for a simple atomic operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but the operation is relatively straightforward. However, it lacks context about the acknowledgment requirement and any return value or error handling. Given the presence of sibling tools, some context about when deletion is appropriate would be helpful. The description satisfies the basic need but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema provides a description only for 'project'; the others (tag_name, link_id, acknowledge_asset_link_deletion) are left unexplained. The tool description fails to clarify the purpose of 'acknowledge_asset_link_deletion', which is crucial for correct usage. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not sufficient for a destructive operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an external asset link from a GitLab release.' It specifies the resource (release asset link) and the operation (delete), which is unambiguous. However, it could benefit from clarifying what constitutes an 'external asset link' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related tools like create_release_asset_link or update_release_asset_link. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions for deletion, such as ownership or permissions. The acknowledgment parameter is not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the project scoping ('one GitLab project') but does not detail pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether it returns full MR objects or summaries. As annotations are strong, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds some context (project scope) but not significant behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key focus area. However, it is brief to the point of being under-specified, but that does not hurt conciseness. A 4 is given because it is efficient while still delivering the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 18 parameters and an output schema present, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the returned data contains (though output schema might handle that), nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or the meaning of filters. It also lacks guidance on how to combine filters (e.g., state+labels). The description is incomplete for the complexity, scoring a 2.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 6% (only `project` described), leaving 17 parameters unexplained. The description says 'common review and triage filters' but does not list or elaborate on any of the specific filter parameters (state, scope, labels, order_by, branches, date ranges, usernames, etc.). This is a significant gap since the description is the only source for parameter meaning beyond names/enums, and it fails to provide meaningful detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists or searches merge requests within a single GitLab project, with the phrase 'common review and triage filters' suggesting filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, merge, update branch by focusing on listing/searching. There is no explicit mention that it's a read-only query, but that's implied by 'list or search' and aligned with annotations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_merge_request`, `list_merge_request_diffs`, or `search_gitlab`. It implies usage for listing/searching MRs in a project but does not mention exclusions or direct comparisons. The lack of any contextual recommendation lowers the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states the state change but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility beyond the resolved flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks usage context, side-effect details, and parameter clarifications; it's a minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description does not elaborate on parameter meanings; relies solely on schema descriptions which are partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the action (resolve/reopen) and the target (merge request review thread), differentiating from other discussion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like creating or replying to discussions, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false), but the description adds no behavioral details. It does not mention that this is likely a partial update (only provided fields are changed) or any side effects, which is critical for a write operation with 14 optional parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists all major updateable areas. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 14 parameters and low schema description coverage (14%), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full replace), permissions needed, or how the provided values interact with existing data. The output schema exists but does not cover these behavioral aspects, leaving the description incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists high-level categories (assignees, labels, milestone, etc.) but does not map them to specific parameters like assignee_ids, add_labels, remove_labels, or milestone_id. With only 14% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming some fields but misses many (weight, due_date, description, discussion_locked) and fails to explain nuances like add vs remove labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates issue metadata, assignees, labels, milestone, confidentiality, or open/closed state, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or update_issue_note. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_merge_request or other update tools, making it slightly less distinct than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the capability without contextualizing when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the 'search' capability beyond the annotations, and confirms project scoping. It is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how search/regex interact, so it adds only moderate value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the modest complexity (5 params) and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify search behavior or pagination, which are likely to cause agent error. Output schema mitigates return-value uncertainty, but the operational behavior remains underdescribed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'project' parameter has a schema description. The description mentions 'search' but does not explain the difference between 'search' and 'regex', nor does it document 'page' or 'per_page' semantics. With only 20% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List or search') and clearly identifies the resource ('branches in a GitLab project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch and delete_branch, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_protected_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this over list_protected_branches, list_tags, or other branch-related tools, nor does it mention search vs. listing scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it can toggle draft/ready and open/closed state, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., removing source branch, locking discussion) or prerequisites, so it only partially goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates key update categories. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, making return-value documentation unnecessary, the description is too brief for such a complex tool. It lacks parameter interplay, edge cases, and behavioral caveats, and the low schema coverage means many parameters remain unexplained. This is a minimal but not complete description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 12%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It mentions several update categories (metadata, branches, assignees, reviewers, labels, draft/ready, open/closed) but omits parameters like squash, milestone_id, discussion_locked, allow_collaboration, and does not clarify the relationship between labels, add_labels, and remove_labels. This is insufficient for a 17-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing merge request and lists the editable aspects (metadata, branches, assignees, reviewers, labels, draft/ready, open/closed). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_merge_request or merge_merge_request, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not state 'use for modifying existing MRs' or contrast with merge_merge_request, rebase_merge_request, or create_merge_request. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral note that it does not return the value, which helps the agent set expectations. However, it does not clarify whether the variable is created if missing or if only existing variables are updated, which would be valuable. Given annotations carry some weight, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, free of filler and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it omits critical details that could be conveyed in a few more words. The structure is clean, but the brevity contributes to incompleteness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It provides no context about parameter interplay, typical use cases, or behavior beyond the basic update. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter and usage guidance. A minimal but more informative description (e.g., mentioning key parameters like 'key' and 'value' and the effect of 'raw') would raise completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 10 parameters with only 20% description coverage (only 'raw' and 'project' have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It does not explain what 'key', 'value', 'masked', 'protected', 'variable_type', 'environment_scope', etc. mean or how they affect the update. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with limited understanding of the required and optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update), the resource (project CI/CD variable), and adds a useful qualifier (without returning its value), which distinguishes it from get_project_ci_variable (which returns the value) and create_project_ci_variable (which creates a new variable). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_project_ci_variable or delete_project_ci_variable. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., variable must already exist) or when an update is appropriate. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced, so the agent gets no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description correctly adds the specific behavior of not returning the value, which is security-relevant. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as idempotency (already false), permissions required, or side effects. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the added detail earns a middle score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. It is front-loaded, contains no redundancy, and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 3 required, 30% schema coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not provide context on when to use group vs project variables, prerequisites, or implications of setting flags like 'masked' or 'protected'. The single line does not sufficiently guide an agent for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has descriptions for only 3 of 10 parameters (30% coverage), placing a heavy burden on the description to clarify parameter semantics. The description adds zero parameter documentation, leaving many parameters (masked, protected, environment_scope, variable_type, etc.) unexplained. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it creates a group-level CI/CD variable, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('group CI/CD variable'). It also adds a behavioral note about not returning the value, which distinguishes it from potential siblings that might return the value. This is specific and avoids confusion with update/delete/list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like project-level variables or updates. It mentions no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' conditions, nor does it reference sibling tools. The only hint is the group scope, which is implicit in the name. This is a clear gap for a tool with multiple related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a useful behavioral detail — the tool will not return the former variable value — which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not mention scope-dependent behavior, irreversibility beyond what annotations imply, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Every word adds value: it states what is deleted and the key behavioral caveat about the return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with three parameters, an optional environment-scope filter, and low parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain how filter_environment_scope interacts with deletion, what happens if it is omitted, or caution users to retrieve the value before deletion. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the tool still lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'group' described. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' parameters, nor does it explain what 'key' identifies or how the optional environment scope affects deletion. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a group CI/CD variable.' It clearly identifies the target (group-level CI/CD variable) and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like delete_project_ci_variable. The added phrase 'without returning its former value' further sharpens the operation's scope and outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group_ci_variable, update_group_ci_variable, or delete_project_ci_variable. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'if you need the value, fetch it first' caveat are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'bounded' and clarifies it returns test-suite and test-case results, but does not explain the bounds, pagination, or response characteristics. It does not contradict annotations, so a mid score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Get bounded test-suite and test-case results for one pipeline,' which is concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or filler, easily scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but the tool has simple parameters and is read-only per annotations, with an output schema. However, the term 'bounded' is left unexplained, and there is no mention of what results include or any limits. Adequate but with a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (project has a description, pipeline_id does not). The description adds negligible parameter meaning beyond the name, only implying pipeline_id is the pipeline identifier. It does not compensate for the gap in schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool gets 'bounded test-suite and test-case results for one pipeline,' which is a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (test report). It is distinct from the sibling summary tool by implying detailed results, though the term 'bounded' is vague and not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_pipeline_test_report_summary or get_pipeline. There are no exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the constraint that the thread must be 'existing', but it does not describe side effects like creating a note, requiring permissions, or failure behavior. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra context, meriting a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with a clear mutation action. However, given the sibling tools and incomplete schema descriptions, the description does not fully guide the agent on when to use it or what parameters mean. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the lack of usage guidance and parameter clarification makes it moderately incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions, body and discussion_id do not). The description does not mention any parameters or clarify the missing ones. It fails to compensate for the gaps, so the agent must infer the purpose of body and discussion_id from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'reply' and resource 'existing GitLab merge request review thread', which clearly indicates the action. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_merge_request_discussion' by explicitly stating 'existing', implying it is not creating a new thread. However, it does not explicitly contrast with resolve_merge_request_discussion, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like create_merge_request_discussion or resolve_merge_request_discussion. There are no prerequisites, permissions, or context given. The only indication is 'existing', which is implicit but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail such as whether the update replaces the entire asset link or only provided fields, whether the link must already exist, or any side effects on the release. It simply restates the mutation implied by 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses the specific verb 'Update' and the resource 'external asset link', which is exactly as concise as possible while remaining clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters (5 required) and minimal schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to obtain link_id, whether the update is partial or full, or the relationship between url and direct_asset_path. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the invocation context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, with only 'project' described. The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters, especially the meaning of 'link_id', the distinction between 'url' and 'direct_asset_path', or the semantics of 'link_type'. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('external asset link'), and the scope ('attached to a GitLab release'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_release_asset_link and delete_release_asset_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention using create_release_asset_link for new links, delete_release_asset_link for removal, or list_release_asset_links for finding the link_id. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency (idempotentHint=false), so the description has a lower bar. It adds minor context (source branch must exist; draft mode is available) but does not disclose side effects like pipeline triggers, duplicate MRs on re-invocation, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and input constraint, the second highlights the draft capability. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 14-parameter creation tool with 4 required fields, a two-sentence description is thin. It does not explain preconditions beyond branch existence, key default behaviors (squash, collaboration, branch removal), or cross-project creation via target_project_id. The output schema covers return values, but operational context for correct invocation is largely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 7% (just 'project' is documented), leaving 13 parameters unexplained. The description names only source_branch and draft, and does not compensate for the large gap—target_branch, squash, labels, assignee_ids, reviewer_ids, remove_source_branch, target_project_id (cross-project MRs), and milestone_id all lack meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description together clearly identify the action (create) and resource (a GitLab merge request), with 'from an existing source branch' framing the input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list/get/update/merge/rebase_merge_request, though the verb 'open' is slightly ambiguous on its own (resolved by the title 'Create').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'From an existing source branch' implies a precondition, and 'Draft merge requests are supported' hints at a capability, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance. No mention of when to prefer update_merge_request, merge_merge_request, or list_merge_requests, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits, return format). It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to provide additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details about output (e.g., commit fields returned, pagination) and does not address potential edge cases. It is adequate for a simple listing but could be more complete given the existence of multiple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for only project and merge_request_iid (50% coverage). The description does not explain page or per_page parameters, nor does it add context about how they interact or typical values. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (commits), and the scope (merge request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_commits (which is repository-wide) and get_merge_request (which returns the MR itself).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives, such as list_commits or list_merge_request_diffs. It lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites (e.g., needing an MR IID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing, such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or whether include_html_description affects payload size. Given the annotations, the description provides acceptable but minimal additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could have used the brevity to add parameter or usage guidance without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema. The description alone is minimal but the annotations provide safety clarity and the output schema presumably describes return values. Still, with low schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description is barely adequate for a parameter-rich listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, with only 'project' described inline. The description does not explain page, sort, order_by, per_page, or include_html_description semantics. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List GitLab releases for a project', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like get_release, create_release, and list_release_asset_links, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for listing releases and implicitly that 'project' is required. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_release or list_release_asset_links, nor does it mention pagination or sorting options as usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds 'metadata or assets' and 'existing release,' but it does not explain side effects, auth requirements, or the fact that asset updates are not represented in the input schema. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single direct sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word carries meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with only 17% schema description coverage, one generic sentence is insufficient. It omits required parameter behavior, which fields are updatable, how the target release is identified, and the distinction between this tool and update_release_asset_link. The output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for the missing invocation and selection guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (just the project parameter), and the description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond the general term 'metadata.' It does not explain the required tag_name, the released_at datetime format, milestones semantics, or how the release is identified, and it mentions 'assets' which are not in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing GitLab release'), and the tool name reinforces this. However, mentioning 'assets' creates potential ambiguity with the sibling update_release_asset_link, and the description does not explicitly delimit release-level metadata updates from asset-link updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'existing' implicitly suggests this tool is for already-created releases rather than creation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_release, delete_release, or update_release_asset_link. It also lacks exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, the description adds the key behavioral detail: 'without returning its value'—which means the response likely omits the value, an important quirk for an agent to know. It also implies the operation is non-destructive, but doesn't clarify side effects like whether it overwrites an existing key (likely not, but not stated). Given annotations cover safety, the description adds decent context but misses potential errors or validation requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes a meaningful behavioral clause. No wordiness, no repetition of schema content. It's appropriately minimal and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a create operation (mutation) with 5 parameters, 4 required, no output schema (though has one, but it's not provided in the context), and low schema coverage. The description covers the basic purpose and the 'no return value' quirk, but doesn't cover parameter details, error conditions, or its relation to the pipeline schedule lifecycle. Given sibling tools like update/delete exist, a note on idempotency (e.g., what happens if key exists) would help. It's adequate for a simple create but incomplete for a tool with many required parameters and no param descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 20%: only 'project' has a description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's name. Four required parameters (project, pipeline_schedule_id, key, value) have no added meaning: what is 'key'? What does 'value' accept? What does 'variable_type' default to? The description's 'without returning its value' hints at the 'value' parameter but doesn't explain it. With such low coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create a variable) and the resource (pipeline schedule variable). It also adds a specific behavioral detail—it doesn't return the value—which distinguishes it from similar tools like update_pipeline_schedule_variable or get_project_ci_variable. The verb 'create' + resource 'pipeline schedule variable' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: you'd use this to add a new variable to a pipeline schedule. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. update_pipeline_schedule_variable, or whether it requires an existing pipeline schedule. No alternative tools are named, and the 'without returning its value' hint is a behavior note, not a usage condition. It's adequate but lacks explicit context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., not-found handling, authentication, or side effects). It simply restates the purpose without adding value beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, direct and front-loaded. Every word is useful, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for the tool's context. It does not explain the 'include_html_description' parameter, any edge cases (e.g., missing tag behavior), or differentiate from similar tools like get_tag or list_releases. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks enough guidance for an agent to reliably invoke the tool in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters—it only hints at 'tag_name' via 'by tag name' but provides no details about format or the 'include_html_description' flag. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific and clear: 'Get one GitLab release by tag name.' It states the action (get), the resource (release), and the distinguishing qualifier (by tag name), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_releases (plural) and get_tag (a different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need a single release identified by a tag name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_releases or get_tag, leaving the decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description indicates search/list behavior and one-project scope. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false) corroborates a read/search operation and do not conflict. But behavior detail such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or relation to labels is not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, two lines, front-loaded with action (List/search + scope + filters). Everything earns its place, and the JSON schema covers the parameter details. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Reasonable input schema (15 params but only one description, and output undefined? With annotations, siblings in the environment, output schema present). But no prerequisites, edge cases, and not enough details about interactions/project context. Very important for once!
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 1 of 15 parameters (project) has a meaningful description; most of the parameters (page, per_page, sort, search, labels, etc.) rely on the schema alone, whose coverage is only 7 percent. The description does not make up for such low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (list/search) on a specific resource (issues in one GitLab project) and includes common triage filters. Distinguishes from siblings? It is not explicit, but the single project scope and filter set imply boundaries. Sibling list_global_issues may cover all projects; this description is scoped, but no alternatives are explicitly mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use ('common triage filters') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_global_issues, get_issue and search_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate this is a mutating operation with side effects. The description adds 'immediately' to convey urgency but doesn't disclose whether running a schedule could create multiple pipelines, require permissions, or be rate-limited. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the action without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple purpose, but the lack of behavioral context (e.g., what happens after running a schedule, any side effects, expected response) and minimal parameter guidance makes it less complete. The output schema exists but isn't described, so it may partially compensate, but the description alone doesn't fully cover the tool's usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the 'project' parameter having any description (GitLab project ID or full path). The 'pipeline_schedule_id' parameter lacks any description in the schema. The tool description provides no additional parameter context, leaving the agent to infer that the schedule ID is an integer identifier for the schedule to run.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('project pipeline schedule') with the scope ('immediately'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_pipeline_schedules or get_pipeline_schedule by implying execution rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like create_pipeline or retry_pipeline. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist, be active) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description's 'Replace the body' aligns with these. It doesn't add further behavioral details like permission requirements or whether existing formatting is overwritten, but it doesn't contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, immediately states action and object. Front-loaded and succinct. No wasted words, but it is extremely terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple replacement operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but does not mention side effects, permissions, or how to locate note_id. It covers the essential action without extra context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has descriptions for project and issue_iid (50% coverage), but note_id and body have no descriptions. The description only implicitly explains body, and provides no guidance on note_id or body format. Since coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Replace the body of an existing GitLab issue comment' uses a clear verb (Replace) and specific resource (existing GitLab issue comment). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, and update_merge_request_note by naming the exact action and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_issue_note or delete_issue_note. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist) or contexts (e.g., editing invalidates replies).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as permission requirements or side effects. It is not misleading, so a mid score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema (no need to explain return values), and annotations cover safety. However, missing usage guidelines and incomplete parameter documentation make it only minimally complete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers only 50% of parameters (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions). The description does not clarify the purpose or format of 'sha' or 'approval_password', leaving those ambiguous. It fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Submit') and clearly identifies the resource (GitLab merge request) and the actor (authenticated user). It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like unapprove_merge_request and get_merge_request_approvals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as unapprove_merge_request or merge_merge_request. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or context for approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is destroyed, such as permanence, permission requirements, or effects on associated variables.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action with zero filler. Every word is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation, the schema and annotations cover the basic inputs and destructiveness. However, the description lacks contextual details such as irreversibility or whether associated schedule variables are removed, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'project' but leaves 'pipeline_schedule_id' undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The param name is inferable from the schema, but the description contributes nothing to clarify semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a project pipeline schedule,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete_pipeline_schedule_variable by targeting the schedule itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pipeline_schedule or delete_pipeline_schedule_variable, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Usage is only implied by the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'without returning its former value.' This is useful context that annotations do not cover Flagged as (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) already, but the description adds the specific behavior of not returning the deleted value, which is valuable for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, stating the core action and a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is extremely terse, almost to the point of being minimal, but it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters, especially because schema coverage is only 33%. The optional 'filter_environment_scope' parameter is not explained, and the description does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond what annotations already provide. It lacks enough context for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only the 'project' parameter described. The description does not clarify `key` or `filter_environment_scope` semantics, leaving ambiguity. Since the description adds no parameter context beyond the schema's minimal coverage, it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a project CI/CD variable, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/update/list variables by explicitly saying 'Delete'. The added detail about not returning the former value further clarifies its behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., delete_group_ci_variable, or get/update tools). The context of usage is entirely implicit from the name. There is no mention of preconditions or when this tool is appropriate compared to others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) declare the safety profile. The description adds metadata context but doesn't contradict the annotations. However, it does not fully cover richer behavioral aspects such as exact response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema is available and there are no nested objects. The operation is simple with four params, and the description covers the essence even though the optional booleans are not fully defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the required 'group' parameter is described ('GitLab group full path'), giving 25% schema coverage. The optional booleans (statistics, with_projects, root_storage_statistics) have no description and the description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get GitLab group or workspace with visibility, project, sharing, and permission metadata,' which is a specific verb+resource and mentions the metadata returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_groups because it fetches a single entity rather than listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_groups or get_group_member. It implies direct fetch but lacks explicit exclusions or decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'recent' and 'visible to the connected user' context, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or result ordering beyond what the schema implies. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the key differentiator (account-wide scope). It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 16 parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return format (though output schema exists), nor does it clarify how filters interact or whether pagination is required. For a complex tool with many filters, more guidance would be helpful, but the annotations and schema carry significant weight.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'account-wide triage filters' without detailing any of the 16 parameters. The schema itself has enums and defaults that provide some meaning, but the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is justified because the schema is rich, but the description does not help disambiguate parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent issues across all projects visible to the connected user, with account-wide triage filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues (which likely operates within a single project) by emphasizing the global scope, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for account-wide issue triage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_issues or search_gitlab. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, though the global scope is a clear contextual signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which communicate it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that results include stages, status, runner, artifacts, and failure reason, but doesn't mention default pagination size, max results, or any rate-limiting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is single-sentence and concise. It could benefit from a brief mention of scope filtering or pagination, but the core semantics are captured efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately states what the tool does and the output fields. However, it doesn't mention common use cases, relationship to other pipeline tools, or notable behavior like default pagination and how scope filtering works. With 6 parameters and only 17% schema coverage, it could provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only project has a description). The 'scope' parameter has an enum clearly showing filter options, and page/per_page are intuitive. However, include_retried and pipeline_id lack descriptions. The core required parameters (project and pipeline_id) are self-explanatory from the schema and context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('jobs in a GitLab pipeline'), and includes the key fields (stages, status, runner, artifacts, failure reason). It distinguishes from list_pipeline and list_project_jobs, but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_project_jobs, which also lists jobs, making differentiation somewhat implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for examining pipeline job details, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tool list_project_jobs. It also doesn't mention scenarios like filtering by scope or pagination use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate openWorld true, idempotent false, readOnly false. The description does not disclose possible side effects of retrying (e.g., duplicate pipeline runs, new attempts), and the annotations are not enough to infer consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Two parameters and reasonable tool annotations are enough for a simple retry; multiple sibling tools provide extra context. Output schema is listed, so returns are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documentation adds the GitLab project ID/path format, but job_id remains without enriched description. With only 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing job_id semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb+resource ('Retry a failed GitLab CI job') with clear scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this from retry_pipeline or play_job, but the term 'failed' narrows the intended use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'failed' implies when to use, but there are no explicit exclusions (e.g., do not use for successful jobs) and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds specificity that only failed or canceled jobs are retried, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects like creating a new pipeline or duplicating runs. With annotations present, the description meets the minimum bar 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with zero filler. It delivers the core message efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note on idempotency concerns (given idempotentHint=false) or behavioral outcomes beyond retrying. Given its simplicity, the gaps are not critical but could be improved with a note on when retries are allowed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: only 'project' has a description, while 'pipeline_id' does not. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the gap. A brief mention of what pipeline_id refers to would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (retry) and the resource (failed/canceled jobs in a GitLab pipeline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_pipeline or retry_job. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like retry_job for individual jobs, or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving selection to the agent's interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or consequences of ownership transfer. Annotations provide some hints but the description adds no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise single sentence that directly conveys the purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple ownership-transfer action, the description covers the core function. It does not specify return values or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One of two parameters (project) has a description, covering 50% of the schema. The other parameter (pipeline_schedule_id) lacks description, and the tool description does not elaborate on either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: making the current user the owner of a pipeline schedule. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that manage other aspects of pipeline schedules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states the action without context on when it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns commits and diffs, but doesn't disclose details like pagination, diff size limits, or whether the comparison is bidirectional. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers the core purpose but doesn't explain the optional parameters (unidiff, straight) or any edge cases. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description could be more complete about parameter semantics and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'project' has a description). The description doesn't explain 'from', 'to', 'unidiff', or 'straight' parameters. However, the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory (from/to refs, unidiff format, straight comparison), and the description mentions 'branches, tags, or commits' which hints at the ref types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's minimal coverage but the description's partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares two refs and returns commits plus per-file diffs. It distinguishes from siblings like list_commits or get_commit by focusing on comparison, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comparing branches, tags, or commits, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It's clear enough for a comparison tool but lacks guidance on when to prefer it over list_commit_diffs or get_merge_request_diffs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already convey the write, non-destructive, and non-idempotent nature. The description adds 'external' and 'for a ref' but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits—useful but minimal additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters and only 3 required, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters, the distinction between 'sha' and 'ref', or when to use this tool over 'list_commit_statuses'. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description remains incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22%, with only 'sha' and 'project' having descriptions. The tool description mentions 'for a ref' but does not clarify the 'ref' parameter's meaning or other parameters like 'name', 'coverage', 'target_url', or 'pipeline_id'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update an external GitLab commit status') and the target resource ('for a ref'), making it specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'list_commit_statuses' which reads statuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting commit statuses but does not explicitly contrast with any alternative or state when not to use it. The sibling 'list_commit_statuses' is an obvious counterpart, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. Description adds that it commits to an existing branch, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not mention potential failures (e.g., if file exists) or side effects beyond the commit. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, focused sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose and encoding options. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters and 5 required, and no detailed parameter guidance, the description is under-specified. It lacks information on error conditions, behavior when the file already exists, and the role of optional parameters like start_branch. Output schema exists but does not cover behavioral ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11%, so description must compensate. It clarifies encoding ('UTF-8 or base64') and mentions 'existing branch', but leaves many parameters undefined: content, path, author_name, author_email, start_branch, commit_message. Fails to explain how these interact or any defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: 'Create a new UTF-8 or base64 repository file and commit it to an existing branch.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (repository file), and commit action, distinguishing from update_file and delete_file. Mentions encoding options, which is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for new files only ('new'), but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like create_commit or update_file. Does not provide context on when this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'new'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavior of optional tag creation, but does not disclose side effects or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core action and a key optional behavior. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description is too terse to guide an agent on how to use it, especially since parameter coverage is low. It does not mention assets, milestones, or other important options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%. The description adds minimal insight by mentioning 'tag from a ref', which hints at tag_name and ref parameters, but leaves most of the 8 parameters (name, description, assets, milestones, released_at) completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'GitLab release', and adds the key nuance of optionally creating its tag from a ref. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_tag and update_release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the core purpose and implies when to use it (when creating a release), and hints at the alternative of only creating a tag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like create_tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the clarification that releases are not deleted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether the tag deletion is permanent, if it affects protected tags, or if any confirmation is required beyond the acknowledge parameter. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a critical clarification. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like protected tags or the impact on releases (though it does mention releases). The destructive nature is covered by annotations, but the description could mention that the operation is irreversible. Overall, it is minimally complete but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'acknowledge_tag_deletion' parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete a Git tag) and the resource (repository tag), and distinguishes it from deleting a release with the same name. It is specific and unambiguous, though it could be more explicit about the repository context (project) but that is covered by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting tags, and the note about not deleting releases provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_release or when not to use it (e.g., if the tag is protected). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., it does not state whether the link is resolved to a URL, or failure behavior).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema would have been useful; the description does not specify return semantics (e.g., URL string), and with no output schema but a simple fetch, it leaves moderate completeness. Has output schema is true. However no output schema provided? Actually the set shows has_output_schema true but no actual schema listed. But likely get by; completeness is contextual and okay.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description covers only 'project' (path or ID); 'tag_name' and 'link_id' are self-explanatory but not detailed. With schema coverage at 33%, project description compensation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get one external asset link attached to a GitLab release.' This differentiates from sibling tools like list_release_asset_links or create_release_asset_link, though it doesn't name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Context for when to use vs alternatives is implicit ('one external asset link attached to a GitLab release') but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable transparency detail by stating that variable values are not exposed, which is not covered by the annotations. This extra information about data privacy goes beyond the basic safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description is adequate. It clearly states what is listed and the caveat about variables. While it doesn't mention pagination or filtering options, those are defined in the schema, so the description does not need to elaborate. The output format is implied to be a list of schedules, and the description sufficiently sets expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers four parameters, but only one (project) has a description. The tool description does not explain any of the parameters, nor does it compensate for the low schema coverage. It fails to clarify the meanings of 'page', 'scope', or 'per_page', leaving the agent with insufficient parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing pipeline schedules for a project. It also adds a specific detail (not exposing variable values) that distinguishes it from other list operations. The verb 'List' and resource 'project pipeline schedules' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or comparisons with similar tools like get_pipeline_schedule or list_pipelines. The name gives some implied context, but explicit usage directions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety info. It adds a tiny bit of context by stating 'available in a GitLab project', but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether it includes ancestor groups by default, or any rate limits. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word adds value. Perfectly sized for a simple listing operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters with only one documented in the schema, and no description of return values (although an output schema exists which helps). The description doesn't cover the meaning of 'include_ancestor_groups' or 'search' behavior. For a listing tool with this complexity, the description is under-specified but not critically incomplete given the self-explanatory parameter names and the output schema presence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'project' has a description), leaving 'page', 'search', 'per_page', and 'include_ancestor_groups' without descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters either, so it doesn't compensate for the low coverage. However, parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'search' implies filtering, 'per_page' implies pagination size), so some meaning is inferable. Baseline of 3 is fair.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (labels in a GitLab project). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'project labels' and the project context, distinguishing it from list_group_projects, list_group_members, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_project_members or other project-specific listing tools, though the label-specific resource is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to retrieve labels for a specific project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like list_group_labels (not present) or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or typical scenarios like filtering issues by labels. Adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, so mutating is allowed; destructiveHint=false so safe. Description adds that it creates/starts a job, and the word 'manual' implies user intervention, which is behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is one concise sentence, leads with the action word, includes the actor (CI job) and is not padded. It is structurally perfect and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is straightforward with a modest input schema; the description does not describe outputs/returns, failure response, or job result formats, but sibling tools and minimal parameters make it sufficiently chooseable. Not complete output because no output schema, no failure/return values are described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 68% of the parameters: 'project' is described, but 'job_id' relies on the developer's name, and 'job_variables_attributes' (keys/values) has no description. The description adds meaning for project (full path or ID), but it does not compensate for undocumented job variables.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Start') with an explicit resource ('manual GitLab CI job') and distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting manual jobs, but it does not list specific sibling alternatives or edge cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage context is given beyond the imperative to start a manual job. It does not mention when to avoid using this tool or when a sibling would be preferable, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the job name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that availability depends on GitLab tier and search configuration, which is useful but does not elaborate on other behaviors like result structure 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no redundant details. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 16 parameters and minimal schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify default behavior, pagination, or scope-specific nuances. Although an output schema exists, the high parameter count and low coverage necessitate more guidance, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 13% (only group and project have descriptions). The description lists scope values already present in the enum but does not explain other params like page, sort, regex, search_type, or confidential. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool searches globally, within a group, or within a project, and enumerates supported scopes. This verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_projects and search_code by covering a broad multi-scope search capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage contexts (global, group, project) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as search_projects or search_code. It notes availability depends on GitLab tier and configuration, but lacks clear exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one behavioral detail: it does not return the value after update. With annotations already providing readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, this is a modest addition. It does not disclose auth needs, error behavior, or effect on existing settings, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action and a key behavioral note. Perfectly sized for a brief tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 10 parameters and a large sibling set, this description is severely under-specified. It does not mention that the variable must already exist, how the key identifies it, or any side effects beyond not returning the value. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing parameter context and usage semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only raw and group have descriptions). The tool description provides no information about the parameters, such as which ones are required (group, key, value) or the meaning of optional flags like masked, protected, variable_type, etc. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a group CI/CD variable, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings. It also specifies a key behavioral aspect (does not return the value), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to modify an existing group CI/CD variable but does not explicitly state when to use it versus create or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing variable or authorization. There is no guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tag is created from a branch, ref, or commit SHA, but it does not disclose permission requirements, annotated vs. lightweight tag behavior, or conflict/overwrite behavior. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, action-first sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With annotations and an output schema present, the description is usable, but it remains incomplete for three undocumented parameters and provides no context about errors, permissions, or annotated-tag behavior. It is enough for identifying the operation but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, with only `project` described in the schema. The description clarifies that `ref` can be a branch, ref, or commit SHA, but it leaves `tag_name` and `message` semantics unexplained. Low schema coverage requires more compensation than this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a Git tag from a branch, ref, or commit SHA,' which is a specific verb+object+source combination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tags, get_tag, delete_tag, and create_release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a branch, ref, or commit SHA' implies when the tool is applicable, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as create_release or create_branch. This is implied usage rather than explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the deletion is committed and that last_commit_id is used to guard against concurrent edits. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences contain the core action and a key safety guard. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the central operation and concurrency guard, and the output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, with eight parameters and low schema coverage, it leaves several required fields undefined semantically and does not relate the tool to create_file/update_file for selection context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only explains last_commit_id, leaving path, branch, commit_message, author_name, and author_email without added semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a repository file and commits the deletion, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_file and update_file by focusing on deletion with an accompanying commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_file or update_file. It only mentions supplying last_commit_id to guard against concurrent edits, which is a narrow usage hint rather than a broader selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the word 'permanently' to emphasize irreversibility, which adds slight value. However, it does not mention potential consequences like deleting the entire discussion thread or whether the operation can fail if the note is already marked for deletion. Given the annotations already flag destructiveness, this is an adequate but not rich contribution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'permanently delete', and contains zero wasted words. It fully communicates the tool's purpose in under 10 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple deletion operation with three well-documented parameters and an output schema (which presumably describes the response), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action and the resource type, and annotations provide the safety profile. A 4 is warranted because it doesn't mention possible failure modes (e.g., permission errors) or pagination/limit concerns, but those are less critical for a deletion operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 67% (two of three params have descriptions). The description itself does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the schema's 'project' desc explicitly explains 'GitLab project ID or full path' and 'issue_iid' is described. The description's the verb 'delete' implies the note_id targets the deletion, but no further semantics like the note_id format or how to find it. Since coverage is decent, this meets baseline requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (permanently delete), the resource (GitLab issue comment), and the scope (issue note). It distinguishes from siblings like update_issue_note and delete_merge_request_note by specifying 'issue comment' and the permanent nature of deletion. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks explicit mention of the API endpoint or the exact type of note (whether it's a discussion note or a regular note).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling context, the agent could infer that this is for issue notes specifically, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned (e.g., 'use delete_merge_request_note for MR notes'). The 'permanently delete' wording implies the action is irreversible, but this is not elaborated as a caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reinforces the annotation destructiveHint=true by calling the action an 'explicitly... destructive governance change.' It adds mild context by tying the acknowledgment requirement to the operation but doesn't detail consequences, rollback, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction exists with the provided annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no fluff. Every word earns its place and the advisory clause adds safety-critical guidance without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema removes the need to document return values. The description accurately covers the main risk (governance change) and the required acknowledgment flow. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the acknowledgment param must be literally 'true' or what happens if omitted (e.g., validation error). Overall adequate for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 33% schema description coverage, baseline is low. The description's mention of 'explicitly acknowledging the destructive governance change' nicely maps to the acknowledge_policy_change parameter, but nothing clarifies approval_rule_id, and the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing param documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('project approval rule'), and effectively conveys the operation's scope and destructive nature. Though it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is unmistakable given the name/title alignment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'only after reading it and explicitly acknowledging' phrasing provides a clear precondition for when to invoke the tool. However, it never mentions alternatives (e.g., update_project_approval_rule for modifications) or any exclusions, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—no mention of failure modes, authentication requirements, or output format. Since it adds nothing beyond what annotations and schema already convey, the value is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and key qualifier (numeric ID). It contains zero redundant information and is optimally sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, clear purpose, and an output schema), the description is sufficient. It covers the essential retrieval semantics without needing to explain return values (covered by output schema) or complex behavior. The only slight gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but that is a minor omission for such a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 beyond the schema: it repeats that environment_id is numeric and does not elaborate on project (e.g., path vs ID). It provides no new insights into parameter usage, so it stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (retrieve) and the resource (a single environment) with a specific identifier (numeric ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_environments, which lists multiple, and get_deployment, which focuses on deployments. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a numeric environment ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_environments or provide context like 'use this to fetch a specific environment after listing'. There is no when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the fact that it returns the latest pipeline, but it does not describe return format or potential edge cases (e.g., no pipeline found). With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from noting that it returns the most recent pipeline for a ref, but the name and description together are sufficient. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the 'project' parameter has a description, but 'ref' does not. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema covers half the parameters, the description could have compensated for the missing 'ref' description, but it does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the latest pipeline for a project ref, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines or get_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., only the most recent pipeline) beyond the name, but the description is sufficient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching the latest pipeline for a given project and ref, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipelines or get_pipeline. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the scope of returned data (metadata, pipeline, etc.), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential response size, latency, or error handling, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and then lists the data categories. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lists the main data categories but does not explain the optional parameters or any special behavior (e.g., how include_rebase_in_progress affects the response). The presence of output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could still be more explicit about the tool's full scope and parameter effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (the two required parameters have descriptions, but the boolean include_rebase_in_progress and include_diverged_commits_count have none). The description does not mention any parameters or clarify the optional ones, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (merge request) and enumerates the specific information covered: metadata, branches, participants, mergeability, pipeline, approvals, and discussion status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this is the comprehensive way to retrieve an MR's details but does not explicitly state when to use it over more specialized tools like get_merge_request_approvals or list_merge_request_discussions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds that it returns files and patch hunks, but does not disclose pagination behavior, unidiff option effects, or how Git refs are resolved beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 12 words, with the action and target front-loaded. No redundant detail or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any clarification of the optional unidiff and pagination parameters and provides no guidance on conflicting use cases with MR diffs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, documenting sha and project but not page, per_page, or unidiff. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving three parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Return' + resource 'files and patch hunks' + scope 'changed by one GitLab commit'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_merge_request_diffs and get_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Purpose implies usage for a single commit's diff, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_merge_request_diffs or get_commit. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare the safety profile. The description adds that it covers 'CI and external status checks', which is useful but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or what response shape to expect. With output schema available, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, fitting the ideal concise format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters and moderate complexity, but the descriptions is minimal. Output schema and annotations handle return shape and safety, yet the optional filtering and sorting parameters are not explained. This is a acceptable but incomplete for an agent to confidently use all features.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions) and the description does not compensate. It does not explain optional parameters like 'all', 'ref', 'sort', 'order_by', or pagination. Only the required 'project' and 'sha' are partially described in the schema, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List CI and external status checks attached to a GitLab commit' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab commit') while distinguishing from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'create_commit_status'. It clearly states what the tool does with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving commit statuses but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_pipelines' or 'get_commit'. No when-not or alternative references are provided, so the context is only implied by the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that inherited and invited members are included, not just direct members. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema and annotations cover return structure and safety context, and the description communicates the core membership scope. However, it lacks guidance on optional filter parameters and how this tool relates to similar member-listing siblings, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, with only 'group' documented. The description does not explain page, per_page, query, user_ids, or skip_users, and it does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('members of a GitLab group'), and adds scope detail ('direct, inherited, and invited'), clearly distinguishing this from project-member or single-member retrieval tools like list_project_members and get_group_member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied from the name and title: use this tool to list group members. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_group_member or list_project_members, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds filter category names but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not reveal additional behavior like pagination defaults or permission implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key filter dimensions without redundant words. Every phrase adds meaningful information, making it highly concise and structurally effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description provides a serviceable high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail to fully understand all parameter semantics. The output schema covers return values, but the description doesn't explain relationships between filters or the meaning of specific parameters like min_access_level and with_shared. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully sufficient for confident invocation without additional schema exploration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 8% (only 'group' has a description). The description mentions high-level filter categories (subgroup, membership, visibility, archive, search, ordering) but does not map these to the 13 parameters or explain nuanced ones like min_access_level, with_shared, or pagination controls. It partially compensates for the sparse schema but leaves many parameter meanings ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in a GitLab group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_groups (which lists groups) and get_group (which fetches a single group). The scoping to a GitLab group and the enumeration of filter categories makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: use when you need to list projects within a specific GitLab group with filtering options. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_projects or list_groups, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is clear but no direct decision support is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes changed files and patch hunks, but offers no further behavioral insights such as pagination behavior or response size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Return changed files and patch hunks for a GitLab merge request.' It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is usable from the minimal description, but the semantics of pagination and unidiff remain unclear. The description is adequate for a basic list operation but has notable gaps for a multi-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%: project and merge_request_iid have descriptions, while page, per_page, and unidiff do not. The description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their effects on the returned hunks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the exact resource: 'changed files and patch hunks for a GitLab merge request.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from broader commit-diff or singular file-patch tools among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a GitLab merge request's changed files and hunks are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to similar tools like get_merge_request_file_patch or list_commit_diffs. The context is clear from the resource named, but alternatives are not discussed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'create-access policy' nuance but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or that results are read-only beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on pagination behavior and usage in relation to sibling tools. For a paginated list tool, it should mention that results are paginated via page/per_page parameters. It's sufficient for a simple read but leaves room for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (33%) – only 'project' has a description. The description does not explain 'page' or 'per_page' parameters, which are pagination controls. Given low coverage, the description should have compensated by mentioning pagination parameters, but it's silent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inspects protected-tag create-access policy for a GitLab project, using a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('protected-tag create-access policy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tags (generic tags), get_protected_tag (single tag), and protect_tag/unprotect_tag (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies read-only inspection but doesn't mention exclusions or when to prefer list_tags vs list_protected_tags. Could have noted that this focuses on create-access policy, not tag listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying that the ref can be a branch, tag, or commit, but does not disclose pagination, recursion, or path behavior. This is adequate given the strong annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List files and directories in a GitLab repository at a branch, tag, or commit.' Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the core listing behavior and ref selection. It does not mention path, recursive traversal, or pagination options, though the output schema may fill in return value details. For a list operation this is minimally viable, but more guidance on optional filters would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'project' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'ref' via 'at a branch, tag, or commit', but the other five parameters (path, recursive, page, per_page, and partially ref) remain underspecified. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('files and directories in a GitLab repository') at a specific ref type. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_file or get_blob, which retrieve file contents rather than listing the repository tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to list files/directories at a branch, tag, or commit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, despite a large set of sibling tools like get_blob, get_file, or list_branches that could be confused with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond what the annotations state. No contradiction, but it fails to provide extra transparency beyond structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the action, target, and method. No verbose or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with an output schema present and mutating annotations, the description is adequate. It doesn't discuss return values or error conditions, but the low complexity and existing structured annotations make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 50% description coverage, so the description should compensate for missing parameter meaning. It references 'award ID' and distinguishes 'merge request or note', adding some semantics for award_id and note_id. However, it does not explain project or merge_request_iid beyond what schema provides, though these are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove an emoji reaction') and the resource ('from a GitLab merge request or note') and specifies the key parameter (by award ID). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like add_merge_request_reaction or list_merge_request_reactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for removing a specific reaction but does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., knowing the award ID from a list), or when this should be used over other reaction tools. There is no when-not guidance, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the constraint that only pending or running jobs can be cancelled, which is useful context beyond the annotation, but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive operation, the description covers the key state constraint. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it could mention permissions or the distinction from cancel_pipeline to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the project parameter but job_id lacks any description. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, leaving job_id semantics undefined. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should have provided more clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool cancels a pending or running GitLab CI job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like retry_job and cancel_pipeline by focusing on the single job cancellation state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cancelling individual jobs but does not explicitly mention alternatives like cancel_pipeline or state when not to use it. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond the action. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or effects on existing data, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal addition is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core action and optional parameters without redundancy. Every word is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters and only 10% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate but only covers about half the optional fields and gives no guidance on parameter semantics like IDs vs names. The presence of an output schema helps but does not mitigate the incomplete parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10% (only project has a description). The description lists optional fields like 'assignees, labels, milestone, due date, confidentiality' but does not clarify that assignees and milestones are referenced by ID (assignee_ids, milestone_id), and it omits 'weight' and 'issue_type'. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create) and resource (GitLab issue) with enough specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue, get_issue, and list_issues by indicating creation of a new issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context implies this tool is for creating new issues, which is distinct from update_issue or list_issues, but it does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid it. The description effectively communicates the primary use case without listing alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that inline comments require the latest diff version SHAs and file position, which is useful prerequisite info beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like response structure or side effects, though the output schema covers return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a key detail. No redundant information or filler. The structure is optimal for quick scanning and understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a nested position object and multiple required fields, the description provides the essential distinction (top-level vs. inline) but does not elaborate on the full structure of the position parameter. The schema fills in details, and the output schema exists, so it is reasonably complete but could mention common pitfalls or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the position parameter by stating inline comments need the latest SHAs and file position, which compensates partially. Body is self-explanatory, but no additional detail is provided for it. Overall, it adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a top-level or inline review thread on a GitLab merge request,' using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('merge request discussion') and explicitly distinguishes the two modes (top-level vs. inline). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like list_merge_request_discussions or reply_merge_request_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating new discussions but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. The line about inline comments requiring specific SHAs gives some context but no comparison to reply or list tools. Guidance is present but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail—that the variable's value is not returned—but does not disclose replacement behavior, auth requirements, or what happens on duplicate keys. This is modest added value beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, including the non-obvious detail that the created variable's value is not returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter mutating tool with sparse parameter documentation, this one-sentence description is too thin. It does not address duplicate variable behavior, environment scoping, variable type implications, or project vs group selection guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but does not compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 30% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description should compensate by explaining or contextualizing parameters like masked, protected, variable_type, and environment_scope. It does not; it only restates the tool's action. The sparse schema descriptions and parameter names are left to carry the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('project CI/CD variable'), and adds a useful behavioral differentiator: 'without returning its value.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_group_ci_variable, update_project_ci_variable, and list_project_ci_variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear this is for creating project-level CI/CD variables, as opposed to group-level or update/list operations implied by sibling names. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it, such as whether to call update_project_ci_variable instead if the variable already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 read operation. The description adds that it returns 'profile and identity' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication or what happens if the token is invalid. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Return') and the resource ('profile and identity'). It contains zero waste and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, has output schema), the description is complete enough. The output schema likely describes the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose and the context of the connected token, which is sufficient for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no parameters are needed, so a 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the profile and identity associated with the connected GitLab token. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('profile and identity'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_runtime_info or get_gitlab_capabilities by focusing on the user's identity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like get_project_member, but the context of 'current user' is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs the current user's profile or identity, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity and the fact that it's the only tool for getting the current user, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. It explicitly states the output format ('plain-text trace') and the truncation behavior ('up to the configured response safety limit'). Since annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, the description's extra details about the response size and format enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that states the core functionality and a key constraint. There is no irrelevant information or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (a straightforward retrieval) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but implied by the description), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and the truncation limit, which are the main aspects an agent needs to know. It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but that is not necessarily required for this type of tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the parameters (job_id, project, max_bytes). The schema provides only types and constraints, but lacks descriptions. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description offers no additional meaning, especially for `max_bytes` (which is only explained as a limit). Since schema coverage is low and the description does not compensate, it fails to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('the plain-text trace for a GitLab CI job'), which precisely identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_job` (which fetches job metadata) or `get_job_artifact_file` (which retrieves artifacts) by specifying the log trace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with other job-related tools (e.g., `get_job`). The phrase 'up to the configured response safety limit' hints at a truncation limit but does not provide context on typical use cases or distinguish it from other log retrieval methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about which policies are covered (push, merge, unprotect, code-owner approval), but it does not add other behavioral details like error handling or permission requirements, making it moderately useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and well-annotated, with an output schema available. The description is sufficient to convey the purpose and scope, though it lacks explicit mention of input parameter semantics or error scenarios, which are minor gaps for this read-only operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (project has a description, name does not). The description does not explain the parameters or compensate for the missing 'name' description, forcing the agent to infer from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Inspect' to indicate a read operation on 'one protected branch' and enumerates the specific policy aspects (push, merge, unprotect, code-owner approval). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_protected_branches (which lists all) and protect/unprotect (which mutate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving details of a single protected branch but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_protected_branches for multiple branches. It provides limited guidance on when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context by noting it does not return merged YAML or protected variables, which is a security-relevant detail. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify output boundaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key output constraints. It avoids filler and conveys essential information efficiently, though it might benefit from slightly more detail on parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description provides a high-level understanding of functionality and output, but omits parameter semantics and usage context. It is adequate for a straightforward lint scenario but leaves gaps for an agent to infer details about parameters like 'dry_run' and 'include_jobs'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not explain the purpose of 'ref', 'content', 'dry_run', or 'include_jobs'. It vaguely references content validation and returned jobs, but provides no parameter-specific guidance, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates GitLab CI YAML in project context and specifies exactly what it returns (status, errors, warnings, jobs) and what it excludes (merged YAML, protected variables). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline or get_project, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for validating CI configuration without executing it, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., before running a pipeline) or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool names mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the optional ref/path/time-range scoping but does not mention pagination, sorting defaults, or response size. With annotations, the added value is moderate, hitting the baseline for a read-only listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, efficiently capturing the tool's core function and key options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters and an output schema (indicated as present), the description provides a high-level overview but omits details on sorting, pagination, and boolean flags. It is adequate for an initial understanding but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 8% schema coverage (only project has a description), the description must compensate. It mentions ref, path, and time range, which covers ref_name, path, since/until, but leaves many parameters (all, trailers, with_stats, first_parent, page, per_page, order) unexplained. The added meaning is partial, not enough to fully compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (commits) with clear optional scoping to ref, path, or time range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit (single commit) and list_merge_request_commits (merge request specific), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing commits on a project but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as list_merge_request_commits or get_commit. No exclusions or explicit comparison is provided, only the intended scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as safe read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to re-explain safety. It adds the scope (project pipelines) but tells nothing about pagination, default ordering, or that it returns a list of pipeline objects. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 11 words, direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described. The tool is a standard list operation; combined with the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description adequately covers typical usage. It doesn't mention pagination details, but these are in the schema. Overall, adequate given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 8% (only the 'project' param has a description). The description adds general filter categories (status, ref, source, user, update time), which loosely map to some params, but it doesn't explain the semantics of many others (page, per_page, sort, order_by, sha, name, etc.). For a tool with 13 params, this is insufficient compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('project pipelines'), with explicit filter dimensions (status, ref, source, user, update time). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline, list_pipeline_jobs, and list_merge_requests_pipelines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by status, ref, source, user, or update time' implicitly tells when to use the tool (when you need filtered pipeline listings), but it does not explain when not to use it, such as when to prefer list_merge_requests_pipelines for MR pipelines or get_pipeline for a single pipeline. No explicit alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the domain context of inspecting access policy but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or how search affects results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination/search semantics, but the schema captures the accepted parameters and the operation is simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining page, search, or per_page. Only 'project' is described in the schema, and the description merely reuses the 'GitLab project' context without adding parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('protected-branch access policy') scoped to a GitLab project. It distinguishes this from plain branch listing tools like list_branches and aligns with related protected-branch tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for inspecting protected-branch policies rather than ordinary branches or a single protected branch, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_protected_branch or list_branches. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it includes release metadata, which goes beyond the name 'list_tags', providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates its core function without any waste. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a simple list operation with a clear output schema, the description is adequate but lacks nuance about the return content (e.g., does it include release metadata mixed with tags, or only tags that have releases?). It could be richer but is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions project and tags/release metadata but does not detail any parameters beyond the schema. With only 17% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't explain search, sort, order_by, or pagination semantics that aren't already self-explanatory from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Git tags and release metadata for a project, which is specific and informative. However, it could be more explicit in distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_releases and get_tag, though the mention of 'release metadata' hints at an intersection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it is for listing tags and release metadata, but does not specify when to use this over list_releases or get_tag. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, relying on the agent to infer from the naming context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that an "explicit acknowledgement is required to prevent accidental governance changes", which clarifies why the acknowledge_protection_change parameter exists and signals that this action has governance impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: one states the core action and workflow context, the other explains the acknowledgment requirement's rationale.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides essential governance context and references capability preflight, but it is incomplete for a 5-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage. It does not explain how to configure the policy or what the access-control parameters mean, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like name, allowed_to_create, or create_access_level. It only mentions the acknowledgement requirement, which is already enforced by the schema's const and required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: "Create a protected-tag policy". It names the specific resource (protected-tag policy) and distinguishes this from branch-protection siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like protect_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "after a capability preflight" provides explicit sequential context for when to call this tool, implying the agent should first check capabilities. It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds project/blob scope but does not disclose pagination behavior, ref defaults, or result limits beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase contributes either to tool scope or query semantics. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but omits ref and pagination context that would help an agent handle non-default search scenarios reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 20%, but the description adds meaning for the 'search' parameter and confirms project scoping. However, 'ref', 'page', and 'per_page' remain undocumented in both the schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('blobs'), and the scope ('a specific GitLab project'), which distinguishes it from generic tools like search_gitlab and search_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides useful guidance on what kinds of query terms to use ('plain code terms, filenames, symbols, or error text'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling search tools or mention exclusions such as cross-project search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that updates involve a 'governance change' and require explicit acknowledgment, which provides extra context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like side effects or permission requirements, so credit is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a key guideline with zero filler. It is extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters with minimal documentation. The description does not explain required parameters, how they interrelate, or any constraints beyond the acknowledgment prerequisite. It is insufficient for a complex update operation, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters. It only hints at 'acknowledge_policy_change' via the governance acknowledgment phrase, but most fields like approvals_required, user_ids, group_ids, report_type, etc., remain unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a project approval rule', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list approval rules. It also adds a critical qualifier about reading the current rule first, making the purpose precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a precondition: only update after reading the current rule and acknowledging the governance change. This provides strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, return values, or idempotency. Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnly=false) but provide no additional behavioral hints, so the description carries some burden but only adds minor detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without unnecessary fluff, effectively communicating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple create operation, but it omits details about expected return data, input formatting (e.g., body content), or error conditions. Given the low complexity, the missing context is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover only 50% of parameters (project and issue_iid), leaving body and internal undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining these parameters, reducing clarity for users.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a top-level comment') and the target resource (GitLab issue), distinguishing it from other note operations like list, update, or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'as the authenticated user' gives context on permissions, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other note-related tools. However, the verb 'Add' implies creation, which is clear from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds detail about the output being 'bounded base64 data' and the restriction to 'same-instance' uploads, which are useful behavioral constraints not present in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences without redundant wording. It conveys the core purpose and a key constraint efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output format (base64, bounded) and a validation rule, but lacks details about URL structure, how max_bytes interacts with fetching, or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description is only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% because the description does not mention the 'url' or 'max_bytes' parameters. Neither is explained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the meaning and purpose of these parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Download) and the target resource (same-instance GitLab issue or merge-request upload), and distinguishes it from other tools by specifying 'same-instance' and 'issue or merge-request upload' rather than generic file downloads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (for downloading issue or MR uploads) and includes a constraint ('Only GitLab upload paths are accepted'), which helps select it over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other download tools like get_job_artifact_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about bounded UTF-8 content and same-instance restriction, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or how bounds are enforced beyond what the schema hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key constraints. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a rich output schema and clear annotations, so return-value details are not needed. However, the description lacks parameter-level guidance and explicit usage alternatives, which matters given the 0% schema description coverage and the presence of closely related sibling tools like get_blob and get_file.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only vaguely references 'bounded' content and URL types. It does not explain url format, start_line, end_line, or max_bytes semantics, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names and schema constraints alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches bounded UTF-8 repository-file content from a same-instance GitLab blob, raw, or repository-files API URL. It specifies the verb, resource, and input type, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blob and get_file by emphasizing URL-based access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a same-instance GitLab blob, raw, or repository-files API URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the URL-focused wording implies the appropriate use case compared to path-based siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that the value is never exposed, which is not captured by annotations and is essential to prevent misuse. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core function and the critical limitation. No wasted words; the structure is ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover behavior not already captured. It does that for the value limitation, but it leaves the 'filter_environment_scope' parameter behavior unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'group' documented. 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' remain unexplained, and the description adds no parameter semantics. The name/description imply 'key' is the variable identifier, but 'filter_environment_scope' is left completely obscure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('group CI/CD variable metadata'), adding the crucial qualifier 'without exposing its value'. This distinguishes it from project-level, list, and value-returning variable tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—when you need group-level variable metadata and not the actual value—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The value-exclusion caveat gives subtle guidance, yet no prerequisite or contextual instruction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful context about return contents but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, required permissions) beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 well-documented parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is adequate. It could mention what happens on missing issue or note the 'one' distinction, but overall it's complete enough for a get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents both parameters fully. The description does not add extra meaning or clarifications beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get one GitLab issue' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the included fields (labels, assignees, milestone, task status, links), distinguishing it from list_issues and other issue-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit mention of when to use this vs alternatives like list_issues or search. The intent is implied from the parameters (project + issue_iid) but not stated, so it offers only implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a complete archive download, returned as bounded base64 data. It does not detail truncation or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple download tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output format. However, it leaves gaps around max_bytes behavior and does not differentiate from get_job_artifact_file, so it is not fully complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain max_bytes or job_id semantics beyond the obvious. 'Bounded base64 data' hints at size limits but does not connect to the max_bytes parameter or its behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Download') and names the exact resource ('GitLab job's complete artifact ZIP archive') plus output format ('bounded base64 data'). It distinguishes this from sibling get_job_artifact_file by emphasizing the complete archive vs. a single artifact file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it by saying 'complete artifact ZIP archive,' but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like get_job_artifact_file or states when this tool should not be used. There is no exclusion or alternate-tool guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description's use of 'inspect' aligns with these, and no contradictions exist. It adds no extra side-effect details, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the core action, but it does not mention return values, error cases (e.g., not found), or any additional context. Since no output schema is provided, this lack of detail leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides types and constraints (project has a description, name does not), but the description does not clarify what 'name' refers to (tag name) or the relationship between the parameters. The parameter meanings are not well explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool inspects a single protected tag and its create-access policy, distinguishing it from list (which returns multiple) and protect/unprotect (which modify). The verb 'inspect' correctly implies read-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_protected_tags or protect_tag, but the intent is implied by the resource and action. No direct guidance on criteria for selection is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the factual listing, so it relies on 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key filtering capabilities without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the purpose and filters, and the schema provides required parameter info (project). It doesn't mention pagination, but that is not essential given the schema includes page/per_page.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all parameters (name, search, states, project, page, per_page) covering their meanings. The description only summarizes the filter options, adding marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (environments) with a project scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_environment (single environment) and list_deployments (deployments).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_environment for a single environment), but the listing purpose is self-evident and typical for such tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly noting that variable VALUES are not exposed, which is a key behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations convey. This helps set expectations about what the response will contain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and its key limitation (doesn't expose values). Perfectly front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, pagination, output schema present), the description covers the essential semantic: this lists metadata onlyholistically. It could mention that pagination is supported (though the schema implies it), but the output schema handles return structure documentation. The annotations cover safety profile, so overall this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% – only the 'group' parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description doesn't compensate for the missing parameter semantics of 'page' and 'per_page' at all. While page/per_page are conventional pagination parameters, the description provides zero additional context about their format or behavior, and the group parameter's semantics rely entirely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List group CI/CD variable metadata without exposing variable values' clearly states the action (list) and resource (group CI/CD variables), and the key distinguishing detail that values are not exposed. This differentiates it from other variable tools like get_group_ci_variable and update_group_ci_variable which operate on single variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly signals when to use this tool: when you need group CI variable metadata without values. The exclusion of variable values ('without exposing variable values') provides clear context for when this tool is NOT appropriate (when values are needed). However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling alternatives like get_group_ci_variable for value retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detail about the output content but does not introduce additional behavioral caveats. This is adequate given 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output characteristics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a reasonable overview of the return content (complete threads, resolution state, diff positions) but does not mention pagination or list structure. Given the absence of an output schema, this is adequate but could be more explicit about pagination parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes two of four parameters (project and merge_request_iid) with meaningful descriptions, leaving page and per_page without descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance, so coverage is moderate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists merge request discussion threads and specifies that it includes resolution state and diff positions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_merge_request_diffs or list_merge_request_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives. While an agent might infer usage from the purpose, there is no direct guidance on alternatives or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about inherited members and filterable fields, but does not mention pagination behavior or permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich, consistent with the baseline for annotation-assisted tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and filter capability. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and related sibling tools. The description covers the core behavior but leaves several parameters undocumented and does not elaborate on pagination or filtering semantics beyond 'username or name'. Considering the annotations and output schema, a score of 3 reflects a minimally adequate but not thorough description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only the 'project' parameter is described). The description adds meaning to 'query' by mentioning filtering by username or name, but it does not clarify the purposes of 'user_ids' or 'skip_users', and the pagination parameters are unexplained. With low coverage, the description should compensate more fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists project members, specifically direct and inherited ones, and supports optional filtering. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_member (single member) and list_group_members (group members) by naming the resource and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the appropriate context: it lists direct and inherited project members with optional name/username filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the title and scope make the intended use clear relative to group/member siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive intent. The description adds valuable insight by stating that authentication tokens and CI variables are omitted from the response, which is a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key security aspect without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with 9 parameters and minimal schema descriptions, the lack of guidance on filtering, pagination, and other options leaves the description incomplete for effective usage. The security note is helpful but does not fill the parameter gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11% (only 'project' is described). The tool description does not explain any of the other eight parameters (page, type, scope, paused, status, per_page, tag_list, version_prefix). With such low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not, making parameter usage unclear for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (runners available to a project), and explicitly mentions what is NOT returned (authentication tokens and CI variables), which distinguishes it from potential similar tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies use when listing runners for a specific project, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., listing group runners). There is enough context to know it is project-scoped, but no exclusions or comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive=True, but the description adds the crucial warning 'This changes the target branch,' which is a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured metadata. It also hints at asynchronous behavior ('when its pipeline succeeds'). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that front-load the action and include the critical side-effect warning. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a merge operation with nine parameters and a destructive hint, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key side effect but omits any guidance on return values (though output schema exists), error cases, or permission requirements. It is not inadequate, but it leaves room for improvement on a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 22% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not. It does not clarify the nine parameters, their defaults, or relationships (e.g., auto_merge vs merge_when_pipeline_succeeds). The description adds no parameter-level insight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Merge'), names the resource ('GitLab merge request'), and clarifies the timing behavior ('now or when its pipeline succeeds'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like rebase_merge_request by warning 'This changes the target branch.' Clear and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for merging with an option to wait for pipelines, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., update_merge_request or rebase_merge_request). No exclusions or conditions are provided, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one useful behavioral detail: it only removes the authenticated user's approval, not any other user's. This is beyond annotations, which already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). However, it does not mention potential failures (e.g., if the user hasn't approved) or side effects on the merge request's approval status. With annotations covering safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose without any filler or repetitive phrasing. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 well-documented parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior and its user-specific scope. It does not mention edge cases like failure when not approved, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema. The description adequately supports agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters (project, merge_request_iid) with clear descriptions (e.g., 'GitLab project ID or full path such as group/project' and 'Project-scoped internal ID'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat this information and correctly does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the specific resource (the authenticated user's approval on a GitLab merge request). It distinguishes itself by specifying 'authenticated user's approval', which clarifies it only removes the caller's own approval, not others'. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's usage is implied by its purpose—remove an approval. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., approve_merge_request) or any caveats such as 'only works if you have previously approved'. The description provides no context for selection, though the action is straightforward enough that an agent could infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds only the scope 'replace the body' and does not disclose side effects such as notifications (openWorldHint=true) or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and clearly states the target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, with five required parameters and only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter relationships and acquisition context implicit. Sibling tool names like list_merge_request_discussions provide some assistance, but the description itself does not explain how to obtain discussion_id or note_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, covering project and merge_request_iid. The description provides no guidance on discussion_id, note_id, or body semantics. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('body of a note or reply inside a GitLab merge request discussion'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling note operations like delete_merge_request_note and reply_merge_request_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to replace the body of an existing note or reply in an MR discussion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for issue notes use update_issue_note'), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent operation, so the description isn't burdened with restating that. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: variable values are 'sent only to GitLab and omitted from the normalized response,' and inputs are bounded by depth/length/size — non-obvious constraints an agent should know before calling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, roughly 50 words, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence earns its place — purpose, a privacy behavior, and input-type bounds — with no repetition of annotation or schema data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return shape, so the description doesn't need to explain that. Given the tool's high complexity (deeply nested inputs schema, 25% parameter coverage), the description covers purpose, types, and limits well but leaves gaps: what ref may be (branch vs tag vs SHA), interaction with pipeline schedules, and the side effect that a new pipeline run is triggered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% — project is the sole parameter with a description. The description compensates for the complex inputs schema by summarizing accepted types (strings, numbers, booleans, arrays, objects) and the depth/length/size bounds, and explains that variables are excluded from the response. However, it leaves ref semantics (branch vs tag vs SHA?) and the variables key/value/variable_type structure to the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('GitLab pipeline'), further scoped by 'for a ref with bounded structured inputs or variables.' This clearly distinguishes create_pipeline from sibling tools like retry_pipeline, cancel_pipeline, get_pipeline, and especially create_pipeline_schedule, which creates a schedule rather than an ad-hoc pipeline run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use language is present. The phrase 'for a ref with bounded structured inputs or variables' implies the tool is for triggering a new pipeline on a branch/tag/SHA with optional inputs, but it never names alternatives such as retry_pipeline for re-running an existing pipeline or run_pipeline_schedule for scheduled execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior. The description adds value by noting that a capability preflight is needed and that explicit acknowledgement prevents accidental governance changes, which are behaviorally relevant beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the action. No redundancy or filler; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, 4 required, an enum, and nuanced safety requirements (acknowledge_policy_change), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the purpose of most parameters, the exact requirements (e.g., acknowledge_policy_change must be true), or the expected outcome. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but input semantics and prerequisites are under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11% (only 'project' is described). The description fails to explain most parameters (e.g., name, approvals_required, user_ids, group_ids, protected_branch_ids, etc.). It only hints at the acknowledgement parameter, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a merge-request approval rule'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list/get/update/delete) and mentions a prerequisite (capability preflight), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to create a new rule) and mentions a prerequisite (capability preflight), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like update. Still, the context is clear enough for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the scope of membership (direct or inherited) and that the result includes the effective access level, but does not disclose error behavior or other edge cases. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repetition of schema or annotation details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers the core behavior and the only notable gap is the undocumented user_id parameter, which is not critical enough to reduce completeness further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: the group parameter is documented (ID or full path), but user_id has no description and the tool description does not explain it. The description adds meaning about membership scope but does not compensate for the undocumented user_id parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is a user identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: "Get one direct or inherited group member and their effective access level." It clearly distinguishes this from listing all members (list_group_members) and from project member retrieval (get_project_member) by focusing on a single group member and the effective access level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "one direct or inherited group member" implies this tool is for single-member lookups rather than listing all members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the singular/plural contrast provide enough context for when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds context about what data will be returned (approval rules, received approvals, required approvals, eligible approvers) but discloses no further behavioral caveats such as permissions or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is efficiently worded and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with only two well-described parameters, complete annotations, an output schema, and a description that enumerates the key data components, no additional context is needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (project and merge_request_iid). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource and scope: approval rules, approvals received, approvals still required, and eligible approvers for a merge request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_merge_request or list_project_approval_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and description. It implies usage for checking MR approval status, but does not state when not to use it or mention project-level approval rule tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety aspects. The description adds the return field list, which is useful but not beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction between description and annotations, and the description does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling or rate limits, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose and lists the key returned fields. There is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a clear overview of what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. It does not include an output schema or error cases, but given that these are not provided in the schema either, and the annotations cover safety, the description is adequately complete for typical usage. The lack of explicit context about when to use it is the only minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for the 'project' parameter but not for 'pipeline_id', resulting in only 50% coverage. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, as it does not mention parameters at all. Thus, the semantics for the pipeline_id parameter are unclear, especially since it is required. This weakens the parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves a single pipeline and explicitly lists the fields it returns (status, duration, coverage, ref, user, timestamps). It is distinct from list_pipelines (which retrieves multiple) and get_latest_pipeline (which retrieves the latest), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipelines or get_latest_pipeline. However, the name 'get_pipeline' and the description 'Get one pipeline' strongly imply that it is for fetching a specific pipeline by ID, which is a reasonable implicit guidance. Still, explicit differentiation would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by enumerating the data fields returned (repository, namespace, etc.), which helps set expectations. Yet it does not disclose anything about error behavior, rate limits, or how to interpret the statistics parameter, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that names the resource and enumerates what is fetched. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return formatting. It covers the main data categories, and the simplicity of the tool is matched by the description. The only minor gap is not mentioning the 'statistics' option, but that is a parameter detail rather than a contextual requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for the required 'project' parameter, but the optional 'statistics' parameter has no description and the tool description does not mention it. With schema_description_coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving users unsure of the effect of the boolean flag and its relationship to the listed metadata fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets repository, namespace, default branch, visibility, permissions, and feature metadata for a single GitLab project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_group_projects or get_group. The verb 'get' and the explicit resource make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing project details for one project (by ID or path), and the schema documents the project parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_projects or get_group, or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral disclosure that the variable's value is not exposed, which is crucial for security-sensitive CI variable operations. This goes beyond the generic read-only annotation, though it does not describe additional behaviors such as permissions or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it avoids unnecessary details. It effectively communicates the essential purpose in minimal text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Annotations cover the safety profile. The tool is simple with three parameters, and the description plus schema provide a reasonably complete picture. However, the undocumented 'filter_environment_scope' parameter leaves a small gap in understanding, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description), falling well below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate with parameter semantics. It does not. The 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' parameters lack any description beyond their names, leaving their exact meaning and format ambiguous. While 'key' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'filter_environment_scope' is not, and the description adds no clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving project CI/CD variable metadata. The specific verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'project CI/CD variable metadata' and the qualifier 'without exposing its value' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_ci_variables, create_project_ci_variable, update_project_ci_variable, and delete_project_ci_variable. It also distinguishes from group-level variable tools by specifying 'project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the resource and the safe nature of the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_project_ci_variables or get_group_ci_variable. It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternative tools, which is a noticeable gap given the presence of closely related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or scope limitations beyond the merge-request association, so it reaches only the baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource effectively, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, strong annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both required parameters, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('pipelines'), and scope ('associated with a GitLab merge request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'list_pipelines' which would list project-level pipelines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for merge-request-scoped pipelines but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_pipelines or state when not to use it. No exclusion 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: 'Secret tokens and secret custom headers are never exposed.' This is useful security context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a valuable security note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the annotations cover safety. The description adds the security-relevant redaction behavior. For a simple paginated list tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention pagination defaults or explicit sibling alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'project' described. The description does not compensate by explaining pagination semantics for 'page' or 'per_page', nor does it clarify any parameter-specific behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List project webhook configurations.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like get_project_webhook and list_project_webhook_events by focusing on configurations, not a single webhook or events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the purpose statement: use this when needing all webhook configurations for a project. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_project_webhook or list_project_webhook_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: that the tool commits the change and that last_commit_id provides optimistic locking against concurrent edits. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover failure modes or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value, from the core operation to the concurrency warning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling file tools. The description is too sparse: it doesn't explain branch vs. start_branch, encoding choices, author fields, or how this differs from create_file/delete_file beyond 'replace.' Given the tool's complexity, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10% (only 'project' has a description), yet the description only elaborates on last_commit_id—and that briefly. The other nine parameters, including path, branch, content, encoding, author_name, and commit_message, have no added explanation, leaving agents to rely on names alone. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Replace a repository file and commit the change.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file and delete_file by emphasizing replacement of an existing file, and it specifically names the commit action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context—use this to replace an existing repository file and commit. It also gives a concrete usage instruction: supply last_commit_id to prevent overwriting concurrent edits. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutating but non-destructive nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, idempotency characteristics, or side effects beyond what annotations reveal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extra words. It fits the tool's simplicity and leaves parameter details to the schema. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward write operation with a known output schema. It covers the core usage (issue or comment) and effectively communicates the scope. It doesn't mention edge cases like duplicate reactions, but given the output schema and annotations, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's phrase 'or to one of its comments' clarifies that the optional note_id parameter refers to a comment, which is not explained in the schema (note_id has no description). This adds meaning beyond the 75% schema coverage, which describes name, project, and issue_iid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: adding an emoji reaction to a GitLab issue or a comment. It distinguishes from siblings like add_merge_request_reaction (which targets MRs) and remove_issue_reaction (which removes reactions). The verb 'add' and resource 'emoji reaction' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the target being either an issue or its comments, which clarifies when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear from the context and sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description does not contradict this and adds no further behavioral details such as permission requirements or failure modes, but given the annotations, the bar is met with minimal extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, directly conveying the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. The tool is relatively simple (create a branch from a ref), and the description sufficiently captures the required inputs and intent. It could mention error cases (e.g., if branch exists), but this is not essential. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' is described). The description adds meaning for 'ref' by clarifying it can be a branch, tag, or commit SHA, which is valuable. However, 'branch' (the new branch name) is not described, but it is self-explanatory from the tool name and purpose. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'branch', and specifies that it can be created 'from an existing branch, tag, or commit SHA'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag and create_commit, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating branches from various refs but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., 'use create_commit for committing changes'). The context of siblings suggests branching, but no explicit exclusion or comparative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: it explains the role of start_sha in both ordinary (branch tip match) and forced updates, and that delete actions require last_commit_id. It aligns with destructiveHint=true and does not contradict annotations. While annotations already signal destructiveness, the description enriches understanding with preconditions and semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the critical constraints and conditions without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the complex schema (8 params, nested actions array, 5 action types), the description only mentions delete and force branch updates. It omits that the tool can also create, update, move, and chmod files (as per schema), potentially misleading an agent to think it is exclusively destructive. It also does not explain the actions array structure or other parameters. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the purpose of start_sha (must match branch tip for ordinary updates, replacement parent for forced) and last_commit_id (required for deletes), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, schema description coverage is only 38%, and the description does not compensate for many parameters (project, branch, commit_message, actions array structure, force bool). It adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create one GitLab commit that can delete files or force a branch update.' It uses a specific verb and resource (create commit) and explicitly scopes it to destructive operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_commit (normal commits) and individual file tools like update_file/delete_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for deleting files or forcing branch updates. It explains conditions for ordinary updates (branch tip must match start_sha) and forced updates (start_sha as replacement parent). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_commit for non-destructive changes or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, and the description adds 'permanently', reinforcing the irreversible nature. It also specifies the scope (a note or reply in an MR discussion) which goes beyond the annotation. No mention of permissions or side effects like affecting the whole discussion, but the destructive hint plus 'permanently' provide adequate transparency for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), and the annotations cover destructive behavior and open-world semantics. The description is sufficient for a simple delete action, but lacks details like whether it returns the deleted note, permission requirements, or behavior if the note doesn't exist. Given the simplicity of the operation and existing annotations, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions, discussion_id and note_id do not). The description mentions 'note or reply' and implies discussion/note context, but it doesn't explain the meaning of discussion_id and note_id or how they relate. Since the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory and the description ties to a 'discussion', it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'note or reply from a GitLab merge request discussion', using specific terms like 'permanently' and 'merge request discussion' that distinguish it from update_merge_request_note (update) and create/reply operations. It is unambiguous about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this vs. update_merge_request_note or reply_merge_request_discussion. However, the intent is clear from the verb 'delete', and the context of siblings makes it obvious. It lacks explicit exclusion or prerequisite guidance (e.g., 'use this instead of updating the note').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about encoding: UTF-8 text is decoded by default and binary content remains bounded base64. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about response formatting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds necessary behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core behavior (fetching by SHA, decoding rules) and is supported by strong annotations and an output schema. Minor gaps remain (e.g., role of max_bytes, meaning of 'bounded base64'), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only blob retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains blob_sha via 'by Git object SHA' and decode_text via 'UTF-8 text is decoded by default'. However, max_bytes is not mentioned at all, leaving its behavior unclear. Partial compensation is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches repository blob content by Git object SHA, using a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('repository blob'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file (which likely fetches by path) by emphasizing the SHA-based access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you have a Git object SHA), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. Sibling tools like get_file or search_code are not referenced, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. Description adds 'optional diff statistics' but doesn't disclose additional behaviors such as ref resolution or response shape; no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate. It could add explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., list_commit_diffs for full diffs), but the core behavior is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema describes project and sha but leaves stats as a bare boolean. Description's 'optional diff statistics' clarifies the stats parameter's purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema. Project and sha semantics are already covered by schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' with resource 'a GitLab commit' and optional diff statistics. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_commits (plural) and list_commit_diffs by targeting a single commit with optional stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'Fetch a GitLab commit' implies use when retrieving a single commit, but it doesn't mention list_commits for multiple commits or list_commit_diffs for full diffs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: text is decoded from base64 by default, while binary or unusually large content stays base64. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies response format, which is critical for consumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word contributes value; no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a key behavioral nuance about encoding. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has a moderate parameter count (6) with an output schema, so return format need not be described. The description covers the main action, ref scoping, and decoding behavior. Missing details like line-range parameters are relatively niche. Given annotations and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for most use cases, though it could note that line parameters exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'project' has a description). The description explains the semantics of 'ref' ('at a ref') and 'decode_text' ('decoded from base64 by default; binary or unusually large content stays base64'), adding meaning not in the schema. However, it does not clarify 'start_line' or 'end_line', which likely control line ranges. Given low coverage, more compensation is expected, but the added details are useful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Fetch one repository file at a ref' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'one' file (vs. lists) and referencing 'ref' for version-specific retrieval. The context about base64 decoding further clarifies behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for retrieving a single file at a specific ref, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like get_blob, search_code, or fetch_gitlab_file_url. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'read-only probes', which aligns with the annotations indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, since the annotations already cover these traits, the description adds little new behavioral transparency beyond reinforcing the read-only guarantee.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It does not mention the optional nature of parameters or how project scoping affects results, but that information is likely provided in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for project, refresh, and detailed parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: discovering GitLab instance capabilities, identity, token, API support, permissions, licensing, and configuration. It distinguishes itself from other get/list operations by focusing on meta-information about the instance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovering instance capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It could mention that it is useful for feature detection or verifying permissions, but the read-only nature and focus on capabilities make the use case fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning pagination traversal, exact path matching, and the return of patch metadata and hunks. It does not contradict 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the operation, target, scope, and output. It contains no filler and every phrase adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description supplies the key operational details: exact path selection, pagination, and the patch/hunk return format. It does not cover missing-path or empty-result behavior, but for a focused lookup tool this gap is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by defining path as an 'exact changed path' and signaling max_pages via 'paginated,' but unidiff is left unexplained and the max_pages semantics are only implicit. The compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('find') and names the exact resource: a changed path within paginated merge-request diffs. 'One exact changed path' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_merge_request_diffs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for targeted, exact-path lookups across paginated MR diffs, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_merge_request_diffs or list_commit_diffs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations by disclosing that schedule variable values are intentionally withheld from the response — a meaningful behavioral trait not captured in the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the action ("Get one pipeline schedule") and appends one high-value behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are already documented, and the strong annotations cover safety semantics. The description covers purpose and the notable redaction behavior, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter read tool; it only misses explicit sibling positioning for bulk listing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%; the project parameter is well described in the schema, but pipeline_schedule_id has no schema description and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. The parameter name and integer type make pipeline_schedule_id reasonably inferable, so this is adequate but not compensated beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Get one pipeline schedule" uses a specific verb plus resource and explicitly scopes to a single item, distinguishing it from list_pipeline_schedules. The clause "without exposing schedule variable values" adds a distinguishing behavioral scope that further clarifies what this tool uniquely returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The singular "one" implies this is for fetching a specific schedule by ID rather than listing schedules, and the variable-redaction note hints at when this is the safer choice. However, it never names alternatives like list_pipeline_schedules or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving guidance largely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 safety profile is well covered. The description's contribution—that output consists of pass/fail/error totals—is useful but does not add deep behavioral context beyond what annotations and the name imply. No contradiction between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place: 'Get' states the action, 'aggregate test-report counts and pass/fail/error totals' specifies the output, and 'for one pipeline' sets the scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read tool with only 2 parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description is complete. It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty test reports, but the presence of an output schema and openWorldHint mitigates this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: 'project' is well-described in the schema, while 'pipeline_id' lacks an inline description. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but both parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema handles the harder case (project ID or full path). The description neither compensates nor detracts—adequate baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') plus precise resource details ('aggregate test-report counts and pass/fail/error totals') and scope qualifier ('for one pipeline'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_pipeline_test_report (full report) by emphasizing the aggregated/summary nature of the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it returns aggregate counts for exactly one pipeline, which implies when to choose it (summary needs) vs. alternatives like get_pipeline_test_report (raw data) or list_pipelines (pipeline listing). It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, hence not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'associated release metadata,' which provides additional context about the return value beyond a simple tag object. It does not contradict any annotation and enhances the agent's understanding of what the tool exposes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence that conveys meaning without any fluff or redundancy. It earns its place by adding the release metadata detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with an output schema available and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose and return scope, though it could theoretically mention error conditions or behavior when the tag does not exist. Still, given the overall simplicity, it is well-rounded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (project is described, tag_name is not). The description adds no additional parameter details, but both parameter names ('project' and 'tag_name') are self-explanatory. Since the schema partially documents params and the description does not compensate for the undocumented one, a middle score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('one Git tag'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('associated release metadata') that sets it apart from sibling tools like list_tags or get_protected_tag. This makes its purpose immediately clear and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies singular use ('one Git tag') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_tags or get_release. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, though the singular wording hints at a fetch-by-name operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is presentanding the description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., comments via note_id). No mention of pagination limits, authentication, or side effects, but the tool is read-only. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, one short sentence, with a clean JSON schema. No unnecessary prose or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The context is sufficient for a straightforward listing task but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., merge request reactions) and any behavioral notes like pagination limits. Still, it covers the key use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters are generally well defined: project has both id/path with a description, issue_iid has 'Project-scoped internal ID', and note_id is for comments. Pagination params are standard. Could be clearer on defaults, but adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List emoji reactions') and the target resource ('on a GitLab issue or one of its comments'). The tool name and title are echoed but also elaborated, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_merge_request_reactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use it (for issue reactions, including comments via note_id), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how to choose between sibling tools. No exclusionary guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about targeting individual notes via note_id, but doesn't mention pagination or return structure, which is only partially compensated by the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with 13 words. It conveys the action, resource, and a key optional scope (notes) without redundancy. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description sufficiently scopes the operation to MR or note reactions. It explains the required context and the optional note_id use case, making it complete for invocation, though a mention of pagination would slightly improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover only project and merge_request_iid (40%). The tool description clarifies note_id's role by mentioning 'or one of its notes', but page and per_page are not elaborated beyond their names and constraints. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves pagination semantics underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'emoji reactions on a GitLab merge request or one of its notes', clearly defining its scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add/remove reactions and from issue-specific reactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool—to retrieve reactions on an MR or a note—and the resource scope is explicit. However, it doesn't name any alternative tools or explicitly state exclusions, though alternatives are implied by sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds nothing beyond what annotations provide; it does not mention pagination, return format, or any other behavioral nuances. Since the annotations cover the key aspects, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning every character.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema and the tool is a simple list operation with clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It could potentially mention pagination or the fact that returns a list, but given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. Overall, it is adequately complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema explicitly describes both 'project' (GitLab project ID or full path) and 'tag_name' (required). Schema description coverage is 50% (only project has description), but the description itself does not add further meaning. The tool name and context clearly imply the tag_name is a release tag, so the schema is adequate. No additional param information is provided in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List external asset links attached to a GitLab release' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (external asset links of a release), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_release_asset_link, create_release_asset_link, update_release_asset_link, and delete_release_asset_link by implying the plural/list operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states what it does, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. Given that it is a list operation, the usage context is implied, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated. It could benefit from noting that it complements asset link CRUD operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description consistently states 'Remove', but adds no extra behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as permissions or idempotency implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal operation, the description is complete enough. It does not explain return values, but this is acceptable given the straightforward nature of the operation and the absence of an explicit output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 4 parameters with only 2 described (project and issue_iid) from the JSDoc. The description clarifies 'award_id' as the identifier but leaves 'note_id' unexplained, and does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove), the resource (emoji reaction), and the context (GitLab issue or issue comment) with the identifier (award ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_issue_reaction and list_issue_reactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a reaction needs to be removed, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. It is straightforward enough for a typical agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'accessible' scope, which implies visibility/authorization constraints, but does not mention pagination or other behavioral details. Given the annotations, the added context is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the primary use case, making efficient use of the allowed space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately positions the tool for its disambiguation role. Despite having 10 optional parameters with no schema descriptions, the essential guidance (what is searched, when to use it) is present, though deeper filter semantics are left to the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'search' parameter matches against name, path, or description, which is useful. However, the other 9 parameters (sort, order_by, visibility, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap partially addressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitLab projects') with explicit searchable fields ('name, path, or description'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_project (single project by ID) and list_group_projects (projects within a group).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool to resolve an ambiguous project before other calls, providing clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is practical and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given the annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, the description adds value by specifying the exact scope of destruction (only release metadata, not the tag). This is beyond what the annotation hints convey, clarifying what is NOT destroyed, which is critical for an agent to predict side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and adds essential qualifiers without fluff. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's scope, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple delete operation with an output schema present and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main action and its boundary condition (not deleting the tag). It doesn't explain return values, but that's acceptable given the output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of parameter context, but this is not critical for a basic delete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only `project` is documented). The description provides no additional insight into parameters, especially the purpose of `acknowledge_release_deletion`, which is a required confirmation flag with no schema description. An agent may not understand why this parameter exists or what value to pass, leaving a gap that the description could have filled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Delete release metadata') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `delete_tag` by clarifying it doesn't delete the Git tag with the same name. This clear scoping makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'without deleting the Git tag' clause provides implicit when-not guidance, signaling to the agent that this tool is for metadata removal only while preserving the tag. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternative (delete_tag), it clearly differentiates the use case, which is highly effective for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the approval summary is only available on Premium/Ultimate tiers, and it lists the specific deployment fields returned, which goes beyond the structured annotation data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence that starts with the action, includes the resource, and packs the key output details without filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only get-by-ID tool, this is complete. The description names the resource, the required input is covered by the schema, and key output categories are listed. An output schema exists, so further return-value explanation is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters have meaningful descriptions ('GitLab project ID or full path such as group/project' and 'Numeric ID of the deployment'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a single deployment' and enumerates the returned data (status, environment, deployable, pipeline, approval summary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments and get_deployment_approval_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching one deployment by ID but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. It does not contrast with list_deployments or get_deployment_approval_status, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 safety profile is well-covered. The description adds the 'project-level' scoping, clarifying the resource scope. It does not contradict annotations and provides no additional behavioral traits (like permissions or rate limits) but is consistent and sufficient given 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous wording. Every word contributes to clarity, achieving high informational density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with only two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type and the identification method. No additional behavioral or error-handling details are necessary given the annotations and schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents one parameter (project) with a description, and the other (approval_rule_id) has a self-explanatory name. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it simply restates that the rule is retrieved 'by ID' and mentions 'project-level' without elaborating on constraints or formats. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not significantly compensate, but the parameter semantics are clear from the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get one project-level merge-request approval rule by ID.' The verb 'Get' combined with the specific resource (project-level MR approval rule) and the scoping by ID effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_approval_rules (which lists all) and create/update/delete variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_project_approval_rules). However, the name and sibling tools make the context obvious: this is for fetching a single approval rule by ID. No explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the usage guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description adds value by clarifying that inherited memberships are included and that the effective access level is computed. This is behavioral context not present in the structured fields and enriches the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action, scope, and output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only GET with only two parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (single member, direct/inherited, effective level) and does not need to explain return values since the output schema is already provided. It is fully adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The project parameter is well-documented in the schema, but user_id only has type constraints. The description implies user_id identifies the member whose membership is being fetched, but it does not explicitly define its meaning or format. With schema coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates for the missing user_id details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('one direct or inherited project member') and the key returned value ('effective access level'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_project_members by focusing on a single member, and from get_group_member by specifying project membership.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Get one' implies this is for a single member lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_project_members or get_group_member. The description does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage largely implied through the word 'one' and 'project member'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that bridge jobs lead to downstream child or multi-project pipelines. It does not discuss pagination or response details, but the output schema and annotations reduce the need for that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to either the action, the resource, or the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter-level guidance, but that is already captured in the parameter_semantics dimension.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds no detail about pipeline_id, page, or per_page. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names and the one schema comment for 'project', which is insufficient for four parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('bridge jobs for a pipeline') and explains the purpose: discovering downstream child or multi-project pipelines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipeline_jobs and get_pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool ('to discover downstream child or multi-project pipelines'), which orients the agent among the many pipeline-related sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'eligible approvers' in addition to rules, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not describe pagination or other behavioral details. This is minimal added value, consistent with a score of 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and specifies the scope and content. No unnecessary words; every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation with one well-documented parameter and an output schema (providing return structure), the description adequately states what is listed and includes extra info about eligible approvers. No additional details are needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'project' is fully described in the schema (ID or full path), providing 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but since the schema already explains it, the description adds nothing extra. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' with a specific resource 'project-level merge-request approval rules' and adds 'eligible approvers' to indicate additional content. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_approval_rule (single rule) and create/update/delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'project-level' and 'merge-request approval rules', implying this is for enumerating all rules for a project. It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of get_project_approval_rule, but the naming and context are sufficient to infer that; no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a critical safety detail: variable values are not exposed, which is beyond annotation hints and helps an agent avoid accidentally leaking secrets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and key safety constraint. No filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (metadata only). It lacks only a note on pagination behavior, but this is implied by standard list semantics and the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description provides no parameter details or compensation for the undocumented page/per_page fields. While pagination names are conventional, the description does not clarify their semantics or interaction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists project CI/CD variable metadata, using specific verb 'list' and resource 'project CI/CD variables'. It explicitly notes that values are not exposed, distinguishing it from get/create/update/delete variable tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description sets context: listing metadata versus retrieving actual values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_project_ci_variable for a single variable or list_group_ci_variables for group-level variables, so it falls short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: body contents are never exposed, only presence/size metadata is returned, and header secrets are redacted. This is useful privacy and response-content transparency that annotations do not provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and response limitations. It could mention pagination behavior or explicitly relate to get_project_webhook_event, but the provided information is sufficient for safe correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'specific project webhook' and 'recent'. The schema already documents project, status, and webhook_id, but page and per_page are left undescribed in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the incomplete parameter coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List recent delivery events') and the resource scope ('for a specific project webhook'). It also distinguishes the tool's scope by noting that only presence and size metadata are returned and body contents are never exposed, which differentiates it from event-detail siblings like get_project_webhook_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: this is for listing recent delivery events for a given webhook, and the response limitation ('body contents are never exposed') tells agents when not to rely on this tool for full payloads. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the requirement to read current policy first and explicitly acknowledge the change. It labels it a 'destructive governance change,' reinforcing the annotation and giving the agent a safety protocol. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Remove protected-branch policy'), and the safety condition is appended concisely. Perfectly scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: the destructive nature, the prerequisite read, and the acknowledgment requirement. It doesn't detail irreversibility or downstream effects, but these are less critical for a straightforward unprotect operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'project' is described). The description does not explain the 'name' or 'acknowledge_protection_change' parameters. While the word 'acknowledging' hints at the boolean, it is not explicit parameter documentation. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove protected-branch policy' – a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('protected-branch policy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like protect_branch (opposite), update_protected_branch (modify), and get_protected_branch (read). The safety qualifier adds scope without confusing the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage prerequisites: 'only after reading the current policy and explicitly acknowledging the destructive governance change.' This implies reading with get_protected_branch first and setting acknowledge_protection_change to true. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a destructive action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds contextual detail about the safe workflow (reading policy and acknowledging) and explicitly characterizes it as a 'destructive governance change', which is useful beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficiently structured, front-loading the action and the condition. Every clause adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, it covers the essential requirement of acknowledgment and reading the policy first. It does not explain what happens to the tag itself or permission requirements, but annotations and output schema provide additional context. It is adequately complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter or explain the acknowledgment parameter beyond mentioning it implicitly. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving key parameters underdocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'protected-tag policy', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like protect_tag and get_protected_tag. It states exactly what action is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite: 'only after reading the current policy and explicitly acknowledging' the change. This gives specific guidance on when it is appropriate to use, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes the use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: false but destructiveHint: false, so the description adds value by disclosing the need to read first and the mandatory acknowledgment and unprotect rule. This goes beyond the default annotations, though it doesn't describe all mutation effects (e.g., default field behavior). It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the critical prerequisite. Every sentence provides essential guidance without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters with low schema coverage and is a mutation. The description covers the most critical usage constraints (read-first, acknowledgment, unprotect rule) but omits details about how other parameters behave (e.g., merging/pushing rules). Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but parameter semantics are incomplete. A bit more detail would be warranted for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, with only 'project' having a description. The description highlights two key parameters (acknowledge_protection_change and allowed_to_unprotect) by referencing them as required, but it does not explain the semantics of other parameters like allowed_to_push, allow_force_push, etc. It partially compensates for low coverage but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update protected-branch policy' and specifies it's for existing protected branches, distinguishing it from create/protect and unprotect siblings. The scope and prerequisite (reading current policy) add clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use only after reading the current policy and requires an explicit acknowledgment and an unprotect rule. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it implies when this is appropriate versus protect/unprotect. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needn't restate that. It adds the scope (MR or its notes) but does not disclose behavioral details like duplicate handling, permission requirements, or side effects. Given the annotation support, the description is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently states the action, target, and optional sub-target, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple write operation with an output schema, so the description needn't cover return values. It specifies the core scope (MR or note) and parameter meanings. Slightly more detail on note_id semantics or reaction name format could make it perfect, but it is sufficient for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that 'name' is an emoji and mentions 'one of its notes', which clarifies the optional note_id parameter. This compensates for the 50% schema coverage (project and merge_request_iid are already described). Though it doesn't enumerate accepted emoji names, it gives enough meaning to key parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Add an emoji reaction to a GitLab merge request or one of its notes.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_issue_reaction (targets issues) and remove_merge_request_reaction (removes reactions), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for adding reactions to a merge request or its notes, which differentiates it from issue reactions and removal/list operations. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to react to an MR' or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the commit is atomic, non-destructive, and last_commit_id guards against concurrent overwrites. It goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance—scope of operations, concurrency protection, and branch/sha constraints—without repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters and a nested actions array, the description plus detailed schema provides near-sufficient context. It explains the non-destructive scope and critical constraints, though it could further clarify when to use this vs create_destructive_commit and mention side effects like branch creation or pipeline triggers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25%, and the description compensates only for a few key parameters: last_commit_id, start_branch, and start_sha. Parameters like branch, commit_message, and author fields are left to schema structure without added semantic guidance. This is partial compensation, not full.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating one GitLab commit with non-destructive atomic create, update, move, or chmod actions. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes this from destructive commit creation by labeling the operations non-destructive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear operational context: when to use per-file last_commit_id, and how to handle start_branch vs start_sha. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_destructive_commit, but the non-destructive qualifier and constraint guidance make the intended usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary (protected branches cannot be deleted) that goes beyond the annotations, providing important context about what will fail. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a key warning. No wasted words, and the important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with 2 params and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the main caveat (protected branches) and relies on annotations for destructiveness. It could also mention default branch behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the 'project' parameter well (ID or full path), but 'branch' only has a minLength constraint. The description does not add any parameter-level detail (e.g., branch name format or default branch restrictions). With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to, though parameter names are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete a GitLab repository branch') with a clear resource (branch). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_file, delete_tag) by explicitly naming the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool and includes an explicit limitation ('Protected branches cannot be deleted through this operation.'). However, it does not name alternative tools or steps (e.g., unprotect_branch) for handling protected branches, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact data categories returned (status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, pipeline), which gives the agent a good idea of what to expect without needing to inspect the output schema. It does not describe side effects or auth requirements, but none are expected for a read-only get operation. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the key pieces of information returned. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and efficiently communicates the essential value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope (single job) and the type of details returned side, which is adequate given that an output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true') and the annotations clearly indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. It could explicitly mention that it returns only one job or that the job must belong to the specified project, but these are inferred from 'for one CI job' and the required parameters. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 50% of parameters: 'project' has a description (ID or path such as group/project), while 'job_id' has none. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond 'for one CI job', which implicitly relates to job_id. Since the schema already documents project well and job_id is self-explanatory as an ID, the description adds minimal nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage and clarity of parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (GitLab CI job), and lists the specific types of information returned (status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, pipeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_log (which focuses on logs) or list_project_jobs (which lists multiple jobs). The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'for one CI job' makes the scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about a single CI job serious. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_job_log or list_pipeline_jobs, but the focus on 'detailed status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, and pipeline' sets expectations. The phrase 'for one CI job' signals that this is not for listing or retrieving logs. Guidance is clear for common use cases, even if not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: the file is returned as base64 and there is a strict size limit. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional value beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains all essential information (operation, target, encoding, constraint). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate. It covers what it does, the encoding, and the size limit. It could mention how to discover artifact_path or contrast with the archive tool, but these gaps are minor given the overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (project has a description). The overall description mentions 'one file' (implying artifact_path) and 'strict size limit' (implying max_bytes), but does not explain artifact_path format, the role of job_id, or the max_bytes semantics. It provides marginal help but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb (download), resource (one file from a GitLab job artifact archive), and key attributes (base64, strict size limit). It distinguishes from the sibling get_job_artifact_archive by specifying 'one file' vs. an archive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting a single file from an archive, with a size constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_job_artifact_archive or mention any exclusions/alternatives. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that both user and system notes are included and that order can be chronological or reverse, providing extra context about the results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It clearly conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (as indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the function and sorting options, making it complete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for 'project' and 'issue_iid' only. The description adds a hint about sorting ('chronological or reverse order') but does not clarify the 'sort' vs 'order_by' parameters or 'page'/'per_page'. Overall, parameter coverage is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: listing user and system notes on a GitLab issue. It distinguishes itself from other note-related operations (e.g., create_issue_note) and specifies the scope (a single issue).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when retrieving notes for an issue) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It is clear enough for common use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: it warns about accidental lockout and requires explicit acknowledgement and an unprotect rule. This goes beyond the annotations and explains the safety mechanism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential safety and preflight context, and the output schema exists for return values. However, the large number of parameters and low schema coverage mean some parameter semantics are left ambiguous, but overall the description is adequate for a create operation with strong safety warnings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (13%), so the description should compensate. It clarifies the two critical required parameters (acknowledge_protection_change and allowed_to_unprotect) but leaves the remaining six parameters unspecified, relying on their names and schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Create protected-branch policy,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_protected_branch and unprotect_branch by indicating creation, and the scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a clear prerequisite ('after a capability preflight') and notes that an acknowledgement and unprotect rule are required. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb 'Create' implies when to use this tool versus update/delete/list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the rebase is enqueued asynchronously, the result must be polled, and it only works when the source branch is a fast-forward of the target. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then follow-up polling guidance and a precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action, asynchronous behavior, polling mechanism, and precondition. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The only notable gap is the undocumented skip_ci parameter, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%: project and merge_request_iid are described, but skip_ci has no description. The tool description does not explain skip_ci or add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enqueue a GitLab rebase') and the resource ('merge request source branch'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like merge_merge_request or update_merge_request by focusing specifically on rebasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to poll with get_merge_request and include_rebase_in_progress, and states the fast-forward precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds detail about field availability based on edition/environment, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites and caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers purpose, prerequisites, and edge cases for a simple two-parameter read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (project, deployment_id). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specifically states it retrieves approval status for a deployment, including approval rules and decisions. Distinct from sibling tools like get_deployment or get_merge_request_approvals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on prerequisites (premium/ultimate, protected environment) and warns that fields may be absent on free/non-protected environments. Does not explicitly name alternatives but gives sufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that it doesn't expose credentials or environment values, and mentions determinism, which complements 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose and notable exclusions, sufficient for an info-only tool with no parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description provides no additional parameter semantics; schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports runtime versions, deployment mode, and a fingerprint of the registered tool inventory, distinguishing it from GitLab-specific tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it, the description implies it's for retrieving runtime info, and no alternative exists among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the pagination bound (100 per page) which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each word adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters, an output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: listing, filters, and pagination bound. It doesn't explain defaults (e.g., sort order) but those are in the schema. The description is sufficient for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds value by summarizing the filter categories (status, environment, ordering, time-range) and explicitly noting the 100-per-page limit. It provides a high-level overview that helps the agent understand the intent beyond individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (List) and resource (deployments for a project), and enumerates key filter dimensions (status, environment, ordering, time-range). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_environments or get_deployment, which focus on different resources or granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a paginated list of deployments with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., get_deployment for a single deployment), but the context is clear enough for a typical read-only list scenario. No misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a crucial behavioral detail: 'Secret tokens and secret custom headers are never exposed.' This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, informing the agent that even though it's a read operation, sensitive data will be masked. This is valuable context for the agent's expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff. Excellent front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with a well-defined schema, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and the key secret-masking behavior, leaving nothing critical unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes both parameters fully: 'project' is 'GitLab project ID or full path such as group/project.' and 'webhook_id' is 'Project-scoped webhook ID.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description need not add more, and it doesn't. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'project webhook configuration', and the scope 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_webhooks (which lists multiple) and get_project_webhook_event (which fetches an event).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies it is used to fetch a single webhook configuration when you know its ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'Get one' gives clear context, and the tool name contrasts with list_project_webhooks, so the agent can infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: pagination limits, the 7-day window, the lack of a direct lookup path, and critical privacy details about response bodies and redacted header secrets. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four dense sentences; each adds essential information: core purpose, lookup mechanism, scope limits, and response limitations. No wasteful filler, and the most important caveat (not a direct lookup) is positioned early.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with an unusual non-direct lookup implementation, the description covers all non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know: search window, page cap, event availability requirement, and response body restrictions. The output schema handles return-value structure, and sibling context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (project, webhook_id, event_id). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The caveats are about lookup behavior, not parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get one webhook delivery event by ID.' It further clarifies this is a project-scoped webhook event and distinguishes itself from any direct lookup by explaining it searches the event-list endpoint. This differentiates it from siblings like get_project_webhook and list_project_webhook_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear operational context: it searches the list endpoint, only covers the past 7 days, inspects at most 10 pages, and requires the event to appear in the paginated list. It warns that this is not a direct event lookup, which tells agents when it may fail, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use relative to list_project_webhook_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Exceptional disclosure beyond annotations: describes preflight checks (project/MR membership, applicability, applied state, head SHA match), flags the TOCTOU race condition, and notes the server remains authoritative at mutation time. No contradiction with readOnlyHint:false/destructiveHint:false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by high-value behavioral details. Dense but every sentence earns its place, though the TOCTOU note is lengthy, pushing the description toward the longer end.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with side effects (*openWorldHint*: true), the description is remarkably complete: covers preconditions, error conditions, race-condition risk, and server authority. Return value is partially described (applicable/applied flags), supplemented by an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds semantics beyond the 67% schema coverage by explaining why expected_head_sha and acknowledge matter (preflight validation and acknowledgement requirements). However, commit_message is entirely undiscussed, and no additional detail is given for merge_request_iid beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific, actionable verb+resource: 'Apply a single GitLab code suggestion by its suggestion ID.' The word 'single' differentiates it from its batch sibling, and the description clearly scopes the tool's responsibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: explicit acknowledgement required, preflight validation performed, and TOCTOU caveat disclosed. It stops short of explicitly naming batch_apply_merge_request_suggestions as an alternative, though 'single' implies when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: batch validation, rejection semantics, required acknowledgement, and the TOCTOU race with server authority. It exceeds what structured data provides without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is ~100 words, front-loaded with the primary action, then logically flows through preflight validation, return value, and a critical caveat. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with high complexity (batch, validation, race condition), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, validation logic, return type, required acknowledgement, and a warning about a TOCTOU race. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed, making this complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 83%, but the description enriches parameter meaning: it explains that expected_head_sha is essential for preflight consistency check, acknowledge is explicit confirmation, and ids are validated per-batch. It also explains why parameters like project and merge_request_iid are used together, surpassing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply multiple GitLab code suggestions in a single commit') and specifies the exact API endpoint. It differentiates from the sibling apply_merge_request_suggestion via 'multiple' vs singular, leaving no ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implicitly signals when to use this tool (batch application) and describes preflight validation, but it does not explicitly name the alternative singular tool or state 'use this instead of X when...'. The sibling names are self-explanatory, and the batch context is baked into the description, so the guidance is clear yet not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitlab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CobolJunkie/gitlab-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CobolJunkie/gitlab-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitlab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CobolJunkie/gitlab-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CobolJunkie/gitlab-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CobolJunkie/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server