Find Merge Requests

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (YAML list), default limit, valid state values, case-insensitive author matching, and the error behavior for unknown authors. This is substantial transparency, though it does not mention ordering or pagination, which prevents a perfect score.

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 well-structured docstring with an Args list and Returns note. The first line immediately states the purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most aspects needed to use it correctly. It explains default behavior, filter options, and return type. Minor gaps like lack of ordering/pagination details prevent a perfect score, but overall it is quite complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is essential. It adds rich meaning to every parameter: examples for project/repository, allowed values for state, default and semantics for limit, and case-sensitivity/error behavior for author. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool lists merge requests for a repository, using the specific verb 'List' and specifying the resource ('merge requests') and scope ('repository'). The plural 'requests' and mention of filters distinguish it from siblings like 'get_merge_request' (singular) and 'get_merge_request_timeline'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including optional filters (branch, state, author, limit) and a default behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single merge requests or timelines, but the plural 'requests' and parameter list imply when this tool is appropriate, so it is a clear context without exclusions.

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