list_mr_discussions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: system notes are filtered out. It also mentions the output includes discussion_id and diff position. However, it doesn't mention the default of only showing unresolved threads, which is relevant for the stated use case.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage guidance and a key filtering behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Description effectively communicates what the tool does, why to use it, and an important filtering nuance. It doesn't mention pagination or the default unresolved-only filter, but those are covered in the schema. For a read-only listing tool, this is largely complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, each with clear meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but that is fine because the schema already provides sufficient detail.

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 lists comment threads of a merge request, with discussion_id and diff position. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like comment_on_mr or reply_to_mr_discussion.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use: before commenting again to see prior commentary, and to get the discussion_id needed for reply_to_mr_discussion. This also implies when not to use it (for creating or replying to comments).

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