list_merge_request_changed_files

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is lightweight (no diff content), which implies faster performance. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description implies the result is a list of file paths, which is adequate for a list tool. It covers the key contextual points: purpose, input requirements, and behavioral limitation (no diff). Could be slightly enhanced by hinting at the expected return format, but overall complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by clarifying the required parameters (mergeRequestIid or branchName) and setting expectations about the output (file paths only). This aids parameter selection beyond the schema alone.

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 (changed file paths in a merge request). It distinguishes itself by explicitly noting 'without diff content' and specifying required inputs (mergeRequestIid or branchName). This differentiates it from siblings like get_merge_request_file_diff which provide diff content.

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 context on when to use this tool vs alternatives by emphasizing 'without diff content,' implying that diff content should be fetched via other tools. It also clarifies input requirements (mergeRequestIid or branchName). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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