Search Merge Requests

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operations (which the description doesn't contradict), the description explains GitLab's search limitations and the relationship between searchTerm and projectPath parameters. This helps the agent understand platform-specific constraints that aren't captured in annotations.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that immediately convey the core functionality and critical constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure moves from general capability to specific limitation in a logical flow.

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 search tool with good annotations (read-only, idempotent) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the search capabilities, platform limitations, and parameter relationships. The only minor gap is that without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format, but this is reasonable given the tool's complexity level.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the relationship between searchTerm and projectPath (e.g., 'projectPath required for text searches'), but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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: searching merge requests with specific search capabilities (by username with syntax variations or within a specific project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_merge_requests' by emphasizing search functionality and explicitly mentions GitLab's limitation on global text searches, which helps differentiate it from broader retrieval tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies that 'projectPath' is required for text searches and optional for username searches, and notes that GitLab doesn't support global text searches for MRs. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over simpler retrieval methods like 'get_merge_requests'.

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