list_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (despite a limit parameter), ordering, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the default state 'opened' and possible state values.

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 very concise with a single sentence that includes the core action and a key parameter detail. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, but could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, no enums) and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It only covers the 'state' parameter, omitting essential context for 'filters', 'limit', 'project_id', and 'platform'. The agent needs more to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'state' parameter by listing its possible values. Parameters like 'filters', 'limit', 'platform', and 'project_id' are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 resource (merge requests in a project). It also provides the possible values for the 'state' parameter, which helps differentiate from other list tools. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., explicitly mentioning project_id) and other filtering options.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_my_merge_requests (which may list across projects) and list_issues, the agent would benefit from explicit usage context or exclusions.

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