get_ticket_mrs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the matching mechanism (ticket URL matched in MR title/description) and requiring a 'Full URL'. It does not, however, disclose edge-case behavior such as empty results on no match, invalid URL handling, or explicitly confirm the operation is a safe read—though 'Find' strongly implies it.

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 two compact components: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight Args section. Every line earns its place—there is no filler, marketing language, or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 2-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, and all parameter semantics—nearly everything an agent needs. The main gap is that it never states the return shape (a list of MRs is implied but not explicit), and there is no annotation layer to fill in safety or edge-case details.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: ticket_url is defined as 'Full URL of the GitLab ticket/issue' and state is documented with its exact allowed values ('all' | 'opened' | 'merged' | 'closed') and default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists names, types, and a default.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Find MRs linked to a ticket URL (matched in MR title/description)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all concern jobs, builds, and deployments rather than ticket-linked merge requests.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose—use it when you need MRs associated with a GitLab ticket—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives. The ticket-related siblings (deploy_tickets, is_ticket_deployed) are different enough in function that no confusion seems likely, yet the description does not route the agent away from them.

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