boj_gitlab_list_mrs

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. It states 'List merge requests', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what data is returned. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise with 'List merge requests', a single phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 has 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, or usage context. For a tool with this complexity, more information is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain 'project_id' or 'state' (including the enum values like 'opened', 'closed'). This leaves parameters undocumented, with the description not compensating for the schema gap.

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 merge requests' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('merge requests'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., for a project, user, or all) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'boj_gitlab_list_issues' or 'boj_gitlab_list_projects', which reduces clarity in a multi-tool context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it relates to sibling tools like 'boj_gitlab_create_mr' or 'boj_gitlab_list_issues'. This leaves the agent without explicit direction for tool selection.

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