List merge requests

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=true and destructive=false; description adds non-obvious behavior that omitting both ids covers the whole instance, and mentions the usual filters. This contextualizes the action without contradicting annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. No redundant information.

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 tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It explains the high-level scope but leaves many filter semantics, input formats, and return behavior unspecified, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without prior GitLab knowledge.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond 'usual filters'. It highlights the scope selection (project_id/group_id) but leaves 14 parameters unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action (lists merge requests) and the target resources (project, group, or instance). Distinct from sibling get_merge_request which fetches a specific MR.

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?

Provides context on when to use (for listing at different scopes) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_merge_request imply a single-MR use case but are not referenced.

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