List Merge Request Versions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, rate limits). With strong annotations, the bar is lower, so 3 is appropriate.

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 (5 words), which is efficient but lacks structure (no bullet points or clear sections). It is under-specified for an agent to fully understand the tool's input requirements.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a simple list operation, the description fails to explain return format or parameter usage. The tool's complexity is low, but the description is still inadequate for autonomous invocation.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameter semantics. The description does not mention parameters at all, leaving the agent uninformed about required merge_request_iid and optional project_id.

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 diff versions' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (MR diff versions). It is specific enough to distinguish from creation or mutation tools, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request_version or gitlab_list_merge_request_diffs.

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 (e.g., gitlab_get_merge_request_version for a single version, gitlab_list_merge_request_diffs for diffs). The description provides no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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