list_mr_discussions_tool

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

The description discloses that discussions include inline code comments with file position data, providing insight into the returned content. As a read-only list operation, no side effects are expected, and the description sufficiently conveys the behavior without needing to mention permissions or limitations.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence stating the primary function, followed by a clarifying clause about the content. There is no redundant or extraneous 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?

The description is complete for a simple list operation. It identifies the resource and the included content (inline comments with file position data). Since an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-value explanation is acceptable. The description is sufficient to understand the tool's scope.

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 already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about the nature of discussions (including inline comments), which indirectly relates to the parameters, though it does not directly elaborate on them. This is adequate given the schema completeness.

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 the resource (discussions on a merge request), and clarifies that discussions include inline code comments with file position data. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools like list_mr_notes or create_mr_discussion. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, though the distinction is implicit in the resource type.

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