List Merge Requests

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds the context that project context must be set, and discloses that the response includes status and reviewer approval counts. However, it does not describe pagination, ordering, or error behavior. Given the read-only annotation, this level of transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then specifies the returned details. It includes the necessary prerequisite ('Requires project context') without verbosity. Every part earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return information (status and approval counts) and a prerequisite. However, it does not clarify whether the result is a full list with pagination, whether it returns only summary fields, or how errors are handled. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry more of this burden, so it falls short of complete.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter, specId, with a clear description ('Public ID (GUID) of the API specification'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details. The description does not reference the parameter, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 resource ('merge requests of a spec'), and specifies the returned information (status and reviewer approval counts). It is distinct from siblings like get_merge_request, which presumably fetches a single merge request. The mention of 'Requires project context' adds a prerequisite but does not confuse the purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. It implies its use by describing what it does, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., get_merge_request for a single item). The only usage hint is 'Requires project context', which is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion.

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