list_merge_requests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Get merge requests'. It fails to mention key behaviors like pagination (page, per_page), filtering by state/labels/search, sorting, or date ranges. The agent receives no insight into output format, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are critical for proper invocation.

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 efficient sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise without being verbose, yet fails to include critical information such as parameter hints or usage notes. This is minimal conciseness that does not effectively support tool invocation.

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 high complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not address return values, required parameters, filtering capabilities, pagination behavior, or any operational context. The agent lacks essential information to correctly invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. With 19 parameters, many having enums (e.g., state, sort, scope), the agent has no guidance on valid values or semantics. For example, 'wip' is ambiguous without explanation. This is a severe gap, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.

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 retrieves merge requests for a GitLab project, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('merge requests'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'list_issues' or 'list_commits', missing scope details such as which project (implied by parameter). It is not a tautology but could be more precise.

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_issues' or 'create_merge_request'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., project_id requirement) or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate. This forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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