list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It describes the operation as listing, which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state lack of side effects, authentication requirements, or rate-limit considerations. Thus, transparency is only partial.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, each parameter listed on a single line with a brief explanation. It avoids redundant wording and directly addresses the operation's inputs and output.

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's purpose of listing merge requests, the description covers all parameters and specifies the return format as a formatted string with pagination info. It does not detail exact output fields, but since an output schema exists (per context), this is sufficient. Overall, the description is complete for its complexity.

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 schema provides types and defaults but no per-parameter descriptions. The description fills this gap by explaining each parameter, including allowed state values and label format, and clarifies pagination defaults. This gives enough semantic meaning to the parameters.

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 opens with 'List merge requests for a specific project,' which clearly states the verb (list) and resource (merge requests). It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_merge_request' by indicating plural listing rather than singular retrieval.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get_merge_request' or 'search_projects.' It implies usage for listing multiple merge requests, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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