list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, ordering, or authorization requirements — gaps that matter for a 9-parameter list tool.

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 filler or repetition. It is tight, though arguably too terse for a tool carrying nine parameters.

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?

With nine parameters (four required), no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is thin. It omits pagination/defaults, the project scope requirement, and any indication of what a result contains, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 78%, with most filter parameters already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names state, branches, milestone, and labels but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics beyond what the schema fields already say, and it omits search, page, per_page, and project_id entirely.

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 and resource ('List merge requests') plus the filter facets it accepts, so the agent knows this is a filtered-list operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_merge_request or list_merge_request_discussions, but the 'list + filtered by' framing makes the intent clear.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_merge_request, and no note about pagination or default page size. The filter list implies a browsing use case but leaves routing between siblings to inference.

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