list_merge_requests_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'list' implying a read-only operation, but adds no detail about pagination behavior, default state (opened), rate limits, or the nature of results. This is a significant gap for a tool interacting with a remote API, warranting a 2.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is immediately scannable. There is zero waste, perfectly exemplifying conciseness.

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 moderate complexity with 9 parameters including pagination and filtering, the description is adequate as a bare-minimum statement but misses opportunities to note default state ('opened'), query behavior, or relationship to other MR tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the absence of usage context holds this back from a higher score.

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 input schema fully documents all 9 parameters, including types, defaults, and descriptions. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline score of 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not need to repeat schema information, so a 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 description clearly states the action (list), the resource (merge requests), and the scope (GitLab project). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_merge_request_tool, which likely retrieves a single MR. It achieves clarity without sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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 such as list_mr_notes_tool or get_merge_request_tool. There is no mention of default filters, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without any context for selection, meriting a score of 2.

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