List merge request discussions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.