gitlab_list_merge_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes the token-visible scope, which is useful, but fails to disclose whether project filtering is required, how pagination works, or what the response contains. The behavior remains ambiguous, especially regarding the optional project parameter.

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 redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or how the optional project parameter affects results. Given the tool's apparent flexibility (listing across projects or one), it is under-specified.

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 description mentions no parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema provides names, types, enums, and defaults, but the description adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'scope' or 'state' values represent in GitLab context). Agents must infer parameter usage from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab merge requests') and clarifies the scope ('visible to the configured token'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects and gitlab_get_merge_request by making the resource and plurality explicit, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over gitlab_list_projects or gitlab_get_merge_request.

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