list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so stating 'does not mutate GitLab data' adds no new value. However, the description adds useful behavioral context: error cases such as missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permissions, and rate limits are disclosed. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized with purpose upfront, followed by usage guidance and then edge-case behavior. It is somewhat longer than necessary because the read-only claim duplicates the annotation, but every sentence delivers useful information and the structure is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with fully documented parameter definitions in the schema, the description covers the key operational details an agent needs: when to use it, what data is returned as errors, and how to treat identifiers and pagination. No critical gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description references identifier and pagination fields but does not help distinguish among the 15 parameters beyond what the schema already documents. The mention of project_id/group_id is generic and not present in the schema, so it does not add meaningful parameter-level insight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List projects accessible by the current user'), the resource (projects), and the scope (current user). It also differentiates this collection-oriented tool from single-resource 'get' tools, making it easy for an agent to distinguish purpose without consulting sibling definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('for a collection of resources') and when not to ('choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource'). This provides a clear decision rule for the agent, even without naming every sibling.

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