list_merge_requests

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

The description uses [READ] to indicate non-destructive behavior, explains that state words are translated across platforms, and mentions the 'truncated' field in results when limit is reached. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden well, though it could detail more about rate limits or authentication.

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 concise: one-line purpose followed by a clear list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all inputs and some behavioral traits (truncation, state translation). However, it does not explain the output structure or possible error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: project (id or path), state (with translation), limit (default 50, max 99, truncated flag), and target (server config). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states it lists merge/pull requests for a project, with default open ones. The verb 'list' and resource 'merge/pull requests' are specific. Sibling tools like list_pipelines and list_artifacts are distinct, so confusion is unlikely.

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 explains default state and available states, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. However, sibling tools cover different resources (pipelines, runners), so implicit differentiation is sufficient. A clear alternative or exclusion would raise the score.

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