Merge Requests

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

The description adds '(read-only)' which is redundant since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid project paths. With good annotation coverage, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal value beyond structured data.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, pagination, authentication), good annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return format (no output schema), error conditions, or how results are ordered/filtered. For a tool with pagination and optional authentication, more guidance would be helpful despite the good structured data.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific GitLab project' which aligns with 'projectPath' but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 ('Get merge requests') and resource ('from a specific GitLab project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_merge_requests' by specifying it's for a particular project rather than searching across projects. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the read-only nature adds value beyond annotations.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't explain when to choose this over alternatives like 'search_merge_requests' (for project-specific vs. cross-project retrieval) or 'get_user_merge_requests' (for user-specific vs. project-specific). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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