gitlab_mr_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default state filter and the paging mechanism, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what happens when the project is omitted (falling back to GITLAB_PROJECT or the origin remote).

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 short sentences with no filler; the state default is front-loaded before the paging note. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a four-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description leaves the return shape, ordering, and project-resolution behavior undocumented. It is functional but thin for an open-world read tool.

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 only 25% (only `project` is documented in-schema), but the remaining parameters are self-describing: `state` is a four-value enum, and `page`/`per_page` have defaults and bounds. The description restates the state values and paging but adds no new meaning or edge-case notes 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 states a specific verb and resource ("List merge requests") and names the meaningful filter dimension (state). It is unambiguously distinct from every sibling tool (issues, pipelines, job play, mr_create), so no further differentiation is required.

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 default state (opened) and the available state values imply the intended usage, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus something else or what preconditions exist (e.g. project scoping). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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