list_my_authored_mrs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool traverses all accessible projects, only returns authored MRs, and does not include the MR description. These are useful behavioral traits beyond the tool name and schema. However, it does not specify return format, ordering, or pagination details, but for a read-only list operation, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 compact, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core action, then covers usage scenarios, exclusions, and one key output limitation. No fluff or redundant information exists, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid foundation: it explains purpose, usage, and exclusions, and explicitly mentions that MR descriptions are omitted. It could be improved by listing the fields that are included in the response, but for a straightforward list operation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter (page, state, per_page) already containing descriptive text. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, but per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema covers all parameters. The description's mention of state defaults and history usage appears in the schema already, so no additional value is added.

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 identifies the tool as listing merge requests authored by the user, scoped across all accessible projects. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool list_mrs_awaiting_my_review, which lists MRs where the user is a reviewer. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'merge requests que VOCÊ criou' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage instructions are provided: use for answering 'quais MRs eu abri' or 'o que ainda está em aberto meu'. It also states what not to use it for (MRs where the user is reviewer) and names the alternative tool. Additionally, it notes that MR descriptions are not included and directs users to get_mr, giving clear contextual guidance.

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