list_merge_request_discussions

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

Without annotations, the description lacks behavioral details beyond 'list all discussions'. It does not mention pagination defaults, ordering, or any side effects (none expected for a read-only operation). The minimum viable is present, but more would be helpful.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Despite low parameter count and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format or what constitutes a 'discussion' versus a 'note' (given sibling tools). The absence of behavioral details makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list) and the specific resource (discussions on a merge request), with the parenthetical 'threaded comments' adding clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_merge_request_discussion (create) and list_merge_request_notes (different resource type).

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 like list_merge_request_notes or list_issue_discussions. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or comparison with similar tools.

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