list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default states, or that filtering parameters exist. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit behavior is described beyond the core action.

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 fluff, front-loading the core action. It is efficient but somewhat under-specified, though this dimension rewards brevity.

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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not cover filtering, pagination, or other context needed for non-trivial use cases. It is minimally viable only for the simplest listing scenario.

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 coverage is 0%. The description only implies the 'project' parameter, leaving the other 8 parameters (page, per_page, state, labels, merged_after/before, source/target_branch) unexplained. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 'List merge requests for a project' with a specific verb (List), resource (merge requests), and scope (project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request (singular) and other list tools.

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 vs alternatives such as get_merge_request or list_projects. No filtering context, exclusions, or use-case scenarios are mentioned.

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