gitlab_list_merge_requests

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds context on state filtering, pagination (page/per_page), and default project from env, which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Concise at about 100 words, well-structured with a clear first sentence and bullet-like examples. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.

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?

Complete for a list tool with 4 parameters and an output schema. Covers purpose, scope, filtering, pagination, project context, and alternative tool. No gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds examples and some usage context (e.g., state='merged' requiring client-side filtering) but no fundamentally new semantic info beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists merge requests of a project with optional state filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tool gitlab_get_merge_request by specifying when to use the latter for individual MR details.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Don't use when you have an MR IID — use gitlab_get_merge_request for detail.' Provides examples for different use cases (open, merged, all) and mentions client-side filtering for date ranges.

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