Stale Merge Request Cleanup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool makes recommendations (merge, rebase, etc.). No contradictions. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds value beyond them.

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 sentence of 15 words. It is concise but lacks structure or additional details. Could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.

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 is thin given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions). No output schema, so return format is unclear. The parameter output_format provides a hint but is not explained. Missing details about scope of triage and depth of recommendations.

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 input schema has 6 parameters but 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and schema constraints (defaults, enums, ranges), which is insufficient for proper usage.

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 'Triage stale merge requests and recommend whether they should be merged, rebased, reassigned, commented on, or closed' is clear and specific. It uses a verb (triage, recommend) and resource (stale merge requests). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'gitlab_find_stale_merge_requests' by adding the recommendation aspect.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for cleaning up stale MRs, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Context of use is missing.

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