list_mr_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavior of unresolved_only (fetches all pages, filters server-side) and mentions token savings. But it lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or error handling, which would be expected for a complete disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose; the second gives a key usage hint. Information is front-loaded and to the point.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one parameter's advanced behavior. It mentions threaded comments and inline code comments, which gives enough context. Minor gaps: no mention of return format or pagination details beyond the schema, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by noting that page is ignored when unresolved_only=true and that unresolved_only saves tokens, aiding the agent in parameter selection.

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 'List discussions (threaded comments including inline code comments) on a merge request.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mr_discussion and delete_mr_discussion_note.

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

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

The description provides a specific usage tip: 'Use unresolved_only=true to fetch only unresolved discussions (saves tokens).' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_mr_notes or get_merge_request, leaving some ambiguity 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.