List merge requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The phrase 'using glab mr list' hints at a CLI wrapper but lacks detail.

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 very short (one sentence) but is under-specified. It sacrifices information for brevity, making it unhelpful. A concise description should still convey essential details.

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?

Without output schema and with low schema coverage, the description needs to compensate. It does not describe return values, filtering capabilities, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 fails to explain the meaning or usage of any parameter. For instance, it does not clarify that 'project' expects a namespace/name format or that 'state' filters by merge request status.

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 MRs for a project', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_issues_list, gitlab_mr_create, and gitlab_pipelines_list by naming the resource type (MRs) and action (list).

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, it does not explain that gitlab_issues_list is for issues or that gitlab_mr_create is for creating MRs. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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