list_mr_notes_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 behavioral disclosure. 'List notes (comments)' only restates the operation without addressing pagination, sorting defaults, read-only nature, or any side effects, offering minimal additional insight beyond the tool name.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly under-specified but structurally efficient, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to lack of enriching details.

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 (6 parameters, pagination, sorting) and the presence of an output schema, the minimal description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention the distinction between notes and discussions or any important context, landing at a 3.

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% with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter context, but per guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not conflict.

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 'List notes (comments) on a merge request.' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'notes (comments) on a merge request.' It is specific and understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_mr_discussions_tool or list_issue_notes_tool.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to similar tools like list_mr_discussions_tool.

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