gitlab_list_mrs

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The tool likely performs a read operation (listing), but this is not explicit, leaving the agent with incomplete safety and behavioral expectations.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more informative within the same length by front-loading key details like the available filters or default project scope.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the tool definition lacks important context. It does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites for using the tool. The description is adequate for simple listing but insufficient for complex usage scenarios.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (state, project, maxResults). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 verb '查询' (query/list) and the resource 'Merge Request 列表' (list of merge requests). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file (file retrieval) and gitlab_search_code (code search) by focusing on merge request listing, but could be more specific about filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no indication of when to use this tool instead of gitlab_search_code or when the state/project parameters should be specified. The description lacks any context for usage decisions.

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