List Group Merge Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope of 'descendant projects,' which is behavioral information beyond annotations. 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.

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 verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not cover pagination, filtering, or search capabilities, which are important for effective use of this tool.

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 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters. It does not explain how to use state, labels, search, or pagination parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types in the schema.

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 tool lists merge requests for a group and its descendant projects. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'merge requests', and the scope 'for a group and its descendant projects' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_merge_requests (project-level) and gitlab_list_group_issues.

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 'for a group and its descendant projects', which implies when to use this tool (group-level query) versus project-level alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing the highest level of guidance.

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