list_merge_request_changed_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds the key behavioral trait that it returns no diff content. No other side effects are mentioned, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden. The description complements annotations well.

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 of 14 words efficiently conveys purpose, key constraints, and output nature. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous information. Every phrase earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return format. It states 'List changed file paths', which suggests a list of strings. However, it does not mention pagination or error cases. Considering the tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters and good annotations, the description is nearly complete, but a note on return structure would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that either merge_request_iid or branchName is required to identify the merge request, which is not enforced by the schema (only project_id required). It also implies that excluded_file_patterns filters the output. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 verb 'List', resource 'changed file paths', and scope 'in a merge request'. It specifies 'without diff content', distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide diffs. It also notes the two identification methods (mergeRequestIid or branchName), making the purpose 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?

The description indicates that either merge_request_iid or branchName is required, guiding parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_merge_request_diffs or list_merge_request_diffs, though the 'without diff content' qualifier implies the use case. Slightly more explicit guidance would improve it.

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