List discussions

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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explaining the nature of the returned data (threaded discussions, including code-review positions and resolved state). It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core value proposition without waste. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('threaded discussions') and adds relevant detail about code-review threads.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear idea of what is returned (threaded discussions, code-review positions, resolved state). However, it does not mention the required parameters (target_type, iid) or how pagination works, though these are covered in the schema. The description is minimally complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has high description coverage (86%), so the description does not need to explain parameters in detail. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents target_type, iid, pagination, and project_id fields adequately. Baseline 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 title and description clearly indicate this tool lists discussions. The description specifies 'threaded discussions, including code-review threads with their file/line position and resolved state,' which provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from other discussion-related tools like reply_to_discussion or list_notes.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning code-review threads and their file/line position, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as gitlab_list_notes or gitlab_resolve_merge_request_thread. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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