gitlab_mr_discussions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: system notes are filtered by default, `resolved` is derived from thread notes, and the returned page can be shorter than pagination.total. This last caveat about a raw-count vs filtered-page mismatch is exactly the kind of behavioral context that prevents agent confusion.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads purpose and output shape, the second carries the behavioral caveats. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is placed first.

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?

With readOnlyHint covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the remaining needed context (default filtering and the pagination caveat). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the interaction between the default filtering (includeSystem=false) and derived `resolved`/onlyUnresolved semantics and the resulting pagination discrepancy. It enriches parameter understanding beyond the per-field schema text.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discussion threads of a merge request') and adds the payload detail ('each diff comment's file and line'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gitlab_mr_comment, gitlab_mr_changes, or gitlab_mr_get.

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 implies its use case (inspecting MR discussion threads) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as gitlab_mr_changes or the reply/resolve siblings. Usage is inferable from the behavior described, but there are no explicit when/when-not rules or named alternatives.

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