list_merge_request_notes

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavior such as authentication needs, pagination handling, or whether it returns all notes or only system notes. The schema includes pagination parameters, but the description omits this.

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?

Single sentence, no superfluous words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list tool with multiple parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about sorting, pagination, and what fields the returned notes contain.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'comments and notes', which the parameter descriptions already convey.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists comments and notes on a merge request. Specific verb 'List' and resource 'comments and notes on a merge request' distinguish it from sibling tools (e.g., create_merge_request_note, list_merge_request_discussions).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_merge_request_discussions or list_issue_notes. No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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