get_merge_request_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, whether system notes are included, or any filtering semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'List notes for a merge request' fully captures the core operation in minimal space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully contextualize the call. It does not describe the return shape, note the pagination behavior despite page and per_page parameters, or clarify that project_id and merge_request_iid are needed for a meaningful request even though they are not marked required.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a meaningful schema description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate for anything missing because the schema already documents all six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List notes for a merge request.' The plural 'notes' and verb 'List' clearly distinguish this from the sibling get_merge_request_note, which fetches a single note. Even without naming alternatives, the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used for retrieving all notes as opposed to a single note, nor does it compare with list_draft_notes or other note-related tools. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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