Trace Issue To Merge Requests

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the specific relationship between issues and merge requests. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about what the tool returns, enhancing behavioral transparency.

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 10 words, with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides the core purpose but lacks parameter documentation and details about the output format. It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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 explain the parameters (project_id, issue_iid). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter meaning.

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's purpose: 'List merge requests that close a specific issue when merged.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('merge requests that close a specific issue'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_list_merge_requests which lists all MRs.

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 for when to use the tool (to find MRs that close an issue), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit and effective.

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