User Merge Requests

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning 'uses proper GraphQL filtering', which hints at the underlying implementation but doesn't elaborate on performance, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what the schema provides for userCredentials.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, the GraphQL filtering note feels tacked on without clear value, slightly reducing its impact. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, which would help an agent use it effectively despite the annotations covering safety aspects.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying user-specific filtering, which is already covered by the 'username' and 'role' parameters in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get merge requests for a specific user (as author or assignee)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('merge requests'), and scope ('for a specific user'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_merge_requests' or 'search_merge_requests' beyond mentioning GraphQL filtering.

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_requests' or 'search_merge_requests'. It mentions GraphQL filtering but doesn't explain why this tool is preferable for user-specific queries or what scenarios warrant its use over sibling tools.

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