my_merge_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists merge requests assigned to the current user, and mentions state and project filters. It does not detail pagination behavior or rate limits, but it is a read operation with no destructive actions implied.

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 concise with a front-loaded main sentence and a clear list of arguments. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers input parameters adequately, but could mention that results are scoped to the authenticated user only, and pagination is handled via per_page.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: state filter (with enum values), optional project_path (with example), and per_page (max 100). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('merge requests'), and the scope ('assigned to the current authenticated user'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_merge_requests' and 'my_merge_requests_to_review' by specifying the assignment filter.

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 on when to use (to list merge requests assigned to the user) and includes optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the differentiation from sibling tools is implicit.

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