list_merge_request_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description discloses nothing about pagination behavior, return format, or result structure. The only behavioral note, the unresolved_only filter, merely restates a schema field.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine density of information.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits pagination guidance and any hint of what is returned, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill by trial and error.

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 a middling 60%, with page and per_page left undocumented and the description adding no syntax or format detail for any parameter. The mention of 'unresolved_only filter' duplicates the schema rather than extending it, leaving the undocumented pagination parameters unaddressed.

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 (inline code review discussions and threads on an MR), which is clear and distinct from the mutation siblings like create_diff_discussion and resolve_merge_request_discussion. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of 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 parenthetical 'supports unresolved_only filter' implies a usage context (filtering to discussions needing attention), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any named alternative to route the agent toward. Usage is only loosely implied.

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