list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior, default state filtering, ordering, or the shape of the returned data, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded: 'List and filter repository merge requests' states the operation and scope with no wasted words. It sacrifices depth, but for sheer conciseness and structure it is effective.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully complete. It does not indicate what the response looks like, what the default state filter is, or how pagination works, so an agent may need to rely on external knowledge.

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 100%, and the schema already documents owner, repo, state, page, and perPage with examples. The description adds only the generic notion of filtering, so a baseline score of 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 uses a clear verb ('List and filter') and names the resource ('repository merge requests'), so an agent can tell this is a collection operation rather than a single-item one. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_merge_request, but the list-vs-single distinction is inferable from the wording.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_merge_request for a single merge request or create_merge_request for creating one. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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