list_change_request_patch_sets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that patch sets are 'different versions of the merge request as it evolves,' which adds useful domain context. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, describe pagination/ordering, or mention any required permissions or side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the domain category and the core action. Every sentence adds useful context without wasted words.

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?

The schema fully covers the required parameters, and the description defines the key domain concept. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what the response contains or any behavior such as ordering or pagination, leaving some gaps for a list operation.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including examples for localId and repositoryId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb+resource ('List patch sets') and explicitly defines what patch sets are in the context of a change request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_change_request_comments or get_change_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 '[Code Management]' prefix and the explanation of patch sets imply when the tool is relevant (inspecting versions of a merge request/change request). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_change_request or list_change_requests, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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