list_merge_request_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds concrete error behavior: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. This goes beyond the annotations, though it also restates the read-only nature already covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, but the final sentence contains boilerplate about group_id and pagination fields that are not part of this tool's input schema. It is not overly long, but the extra generic instructions reduce precision.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, error behavior, and identifier format. It does not fully describe return formatting, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical here.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's project_id guidance and adds no new meaning for merge_request_iid. The mention of group_id and pagination fields is generic and not directly reflected in this tool's schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List all versions of a merge request." It also distinguishes this tool from a singular get tool by pointing to the collection-versus-single-resource case.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for a collection of resources and to choose the corresponding get tool when a single resource is already known. This gives an agent clear decision criteria without having to inspect siblings.

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