list_merge_request_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all versions' only implies a read-style operation; it does not mention ordering, pagination, response shape, or the scope of what counts as a version. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a bare-minimum disclosure.

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?

A single, complete, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is so terse that behavioral context (pagination, ordering) could have been added in one extra clause without harming conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter list tool with self-describing inputs, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves return format, ordering, and pagination unaddressed. Notably, both parameters are marked not required in the schema, and the description offers no clarification of what happens when they are omitted.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well-documented in the schema (project_id as ID or URL-encoded path, merge_request_iid as internal MR ID). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('versions of a merge request'), making the core action unambiguous. The plural 'versions' hints at the distinction from the singular sibling get_merge_request_version, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 the closely related siblings get_merge_request_version, get_merge_request_diffs, or list_merge_request_diffs. No context is given about what scenario calls for listing all versions rather than fetching one.

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