mr_discussions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about return format, pagination behavior, ordering, authentication needs, or how the discussion items are structured. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have variants in behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, wasted words, or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is front-loaded with the action verb and states the resource directly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to fully understand what will be returned or how to successfully invoke the tool. Although the parameter descriptions in the schema help, the description does not even hint that project_id and merge_request_iid are likely essential context, especially since the schema marks all parameters as optional.

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 even though the description adds no parameter details. The pagination parameters and identifiers are documented in the schema, and the description does not contribute additional semantic meaning beyond what is already there.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('discussion items for a merge request'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related sibling tools such as get_merge_request_notes or create_merge_request_thread, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_merge_request_notes or list_draft_notes. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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