Get project merge requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (wrapper plus MergeRequest list) and the specific error conditions, but says nothing about pagination despite page, per_page and max_pages being present, which is a meaningful behavioral gap for a list tool.

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 short and the purpose is front-loaded, but the Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate spends lines on generic wrapper language while omitting the parameters that actually need explanation. Every sentence is not earning its place given the missing parameter guidance.

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 covers the project_id prerequisite and return wrapper but leaves most filter and pagination semantics undocumented.

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, so the description must carry the load, but it only mentions project_id and vague '**kwargs'. None of the filters (state, labels, author_id, scope, dates) or pagination controls are explained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Get merge requests for a specific project'), which distinguishes project-scoped listing from group-scoped or single-MR siblings. It stops short of naming the relevant alternatives such as gitlab_get_merge_requests or gitlab_get_project_merge_request.

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 project scoping and the MissingParameterError note imply this is the tool to use when you know the project_id, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like gitlab_get_merge_requests (cross-project) and gitlab_get_group_merge_requests (group-scoped) are never mentioned.

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