List project approval rules

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.