Get merge requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return shape (wrapper plus list of MergeRequest models) and the ParameterError on invalid input, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite per_page and max_pages defaults being non-trivial.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the "Args: **kwargs" block misrepresents a schema with 47 explicit named parameters, which is actively misleading rather than merely redundant. The Returns/Raises docstring framing is acceptable but generic.

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 47-parameter listing tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin: it does not explain paging (per_page default 100, max_pages default 0), filtering semantics, or scope resolution. Only the return wrapper is clarified.

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% across 47 parameters, and the description only hand-waves "e.g., state, scope" under a misleading **kwargs heading. Critical parameters such as project_id, max_pages, per_page, and the many filter fields are undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent gets almost no semantic help.

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?

"Get a list of merge requests" states a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows the operation is a read-list of merge requests. However, it gives no hint of scope (instance-wide vs project vs group), and siblings like gitlab_get_project_merge_requests and gitlab_get_group_merge_requests are not differentiated, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the project- or group-scoped merge request listers that appear in the sibling set, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is a generic "**kwargs: Additional parameters" line, which is not usage guidance.

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