List Merge Request Discussions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action, such as pagination behavior or rate limits, which is needed as there are page and per_page parameters.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely terse. While concise, it omits critical details that are necessary for correct tool selection and invocation, making it under-specified.

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 pagination parameters, optional project_id, and siblings for notes and threads, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what discussions are or how they relate to other MR entities.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond the tool's general purpose. Parameters like project_id (optional) and pagination parameters are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 MR discussions' clearly states the action (list) and resource (MR discussions), but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like gitlab_list_merge_request_notes. It is minimally adequate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, gitlab_list_merge_request_notes also lists notes but in a different context. The description does not clarify the distinction.

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