list_merge_request_changed_files

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

The description adds behavior details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it lists error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) and explicitly states no mutation. This is useful, though the read-only claim is redundant with the annotation.

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 moderately concise, contained in two sentences with clear structure. It avoids excessive verbosity, though some repetition occurs (e.g., 'read-only' emphasized twice). Overall it is efficient.

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 the schema fully documents parameters and no output schema is present, the description appropriately clarifies the return payload ('without diff content') and mentions error handling. It also hints at pagination ('use pagination fields exactly as documented'), though actual pagination parameters are not shown in the schema, leaving a minor gap.

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?

While the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the description introduces incorrect expectations: it mentions 'mergeRequestIid or branchName required' and references 'group_id' though neither is reflected in the schema. This adds confusing, non-factual guidance that may mislead an agent.

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 a specific action: 'List changed file paths in a merge request without diff content', and identifies it as a collection-oriented tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_file_diff or list_merge_request_diffs by explicitly excluding diff content.

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 provides usage guidance by contrasting 'use for a collection' with 'choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource', and mentions read-only behavior. However, the statement 'mergeRequestIid or branchName required' conflicts with the schema, which marks these parameters as optional, causing potential confusion.

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