Issue → merge requests

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

The description adds a behavioral nuance beyond the readOnlyHint by specifying that only MRs that 'reference or close' the issue are returned. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or permission details, though the annotations already signal a safe read operation.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. The title 'Issue → merge requests' is a compact and informative visual representation. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only lookup, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits details about the return type, the meaning of issue_iid, and how this differs from other MR-related tools. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, only project_id has a description (including fallback). The required issue_iid parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for this gap or explain how to use the parameters.

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 'Merge requests that reference or close this issue' clearly identifies the resource (merge requests) and their relationship to the issue, distinguishing it from generic MR listing tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', which would make the action unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like gitlab_list_merge_requests or gitlab_get_merge_request. It doesn't state that this is for finding MRs linked to a specific issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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