gitlab_list_merge_requests

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that the tool lists merge requests and provides the endpoint. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default result counts, state filtering effects, read-only guarantees, or any authentication requirements.

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 that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint for precision. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It omits key context such as how filtering parameters work, pagination defaults, and what the response contains, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 only 14%, with projectId being the only documented parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint's ':id' placeholder, leaving page, perPage, state, search, sourceBranch, and targetBranch semantically under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Lists merge requests') and resource (project merge requests via the endpoint). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request, gitlab_accept_merge_request, and gitlab_save_merge_request.

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, such as using gitlab_get_merge_request for a single merge request or gitlab_create_merge_request_note for commenting. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and endpoint.

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