list_mrs_awaiting_my_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reviewer-not-assignee filtering and the automatic token-based user identification. It does not describe return format, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place—purpose, workflow, and token note. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has low complexity (only optional pagination params, no output schema). The description covers what it does, when to use it, and a key behavioral detail. It doesn't describe output fields, but given the follow-up get_mr/get_mr_diff tools, this is not a critical gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for page and per_page, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics; the token-based user note is context about the tool's operation, not about the existing parameters.

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 open merge requests where the user is a reviewer (not assignee), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_my_authored_mrs by explicitly excluding assigned MRs.

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 workflow guidance: 'use esta tool, depois get_mr, depois get_mr_diff', establishing it as the starting point of the review flow. It also notes no username parameter is needed due to token-based user discovery. However, it does not name alternative tools for other MR categories (e.g., assignee MRs).

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