list_merge_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (local ID, title, status, branches), enumerates possible status values, and mentions pagination. It doesn't discuss auth or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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 three succinct sentences: action+scope, return fields, and pointer to get_merge_request. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It also covers the core semantics (GitFlic MRs, pagination, summary fields) and points to the detailed tool, making it complete for this list operation.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which relates to page/size. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'List merge requests of a GitFlic project with pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('merge requests'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns summary info and directing users to get_merge_request for full 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use get_merge_request for full details.' It also clarifies the GitFlic equivalent to GitHub Pull Requests, helping users understand its role relative to other list tools.

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