Get GitLab merge request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the scope of returned data (metadata, pipeline, etc.), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential response size, latency, or error handling, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and then lists the data categories. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler words.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lists the main data categories but does not explain the optional parameters or any special behavior (e.g., how include_rebase_in_progress affects the response). The presence of output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could still be more explicit about the tool's full scope and parameter effects.

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 only 50% (the two required parameters have descriptions, but the boolean include_rebase_in_progress and include_diverged_commits_count have none). The description does not mention any parameters or clarify the optional ones, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. No additional semantic value is provided 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 the action (get) and resource (merge request) and enumerates the specific information covered: metadata, branches, participants, mergeability, pipeline, approvals, and discussion status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies that this is the comprehensive way to retrieve an MR's details but does not explicitly state when to use it over more specialized tools like get_merge_request_approvals or list_merge_request_discussions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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