list_merge_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals the default scope behavior — assigned to authenticated user without project_id, all accessible MRs with scope='all', and project-scoped listing with project_id. It does not mention read-only expectations, pagination defaults, or error behavior, but the core behavioral nuance is present.

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 two succinct sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the operation and packs the scoping nuance into a compact, easy-to-parse structure. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 24 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly at the default level and to select project-specific scope. It does not describe the return shape, but the list semantics and resource name make that inferable. The main gap is the absence of read-only or output format detail, though this is partially covered by the term 'List' and the rich parameter schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between project_id and scope and the default assignment behavior. Notably, the schema's project_id description says 'lists all merge requests the user has access to' while the tool description clarifies the assigned-to-user default, which is useful disambiguation.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair, 'List merge requests,' and then clarifies the two invocation modes: without project_id it defaults to MRs assigned to the authenticated user, and with project_id it lists MRs for a specific project. This makes the tool immediately distinguishable from singular get_merge_request or creation-focused siblings.

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 gives concrete situational guidance: when to omit project_id (defaults to assigned MRs) and when to include it (project-specific), plus the scope='all' hint for broader access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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