list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of MR objects with basic fields). For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool and front-loads the essential 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., array of MR objects with IDs/titles), pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a listing tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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') and resource ('merge requests for the GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_branch_merge_requests' or 'get_merge_request_details', which also deal with merge requests in different ways.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'get_branch_merge_requests' (which likely filters by branch) and 'get_merge_request_details' (which likely gets details for a specific MR), there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over those more specific options.

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