list_merge_request_versions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the listing operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as pagination, ordering, or scope (e.g., only versions within a project). With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return format (e.g., array of version objects, data fields). Given the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations, the description is minimally complete but could be more informative about the response structure.

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% with descriptions for both required parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations but not compensating for any gaps.

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 'List all versions of a merge request' clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (versions of a merge request), and scope (all). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_merge_request_version' which retrieves a single version, establishing distinct purpose.

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 like get_merge_request_version or list_merge_request_diffs. No explicit usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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