List merge request diffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes changed files and patch hunks, but offers no further behavioral insights such as pagination behavior or response size.

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 filler: 'Return changed files and patch hunks for a GitLab merge request.' It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 five parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is usable from the minimal description, but the semantics of pagination and unidiff remain unclear. The description is adequate for a basic list operation but has notable gaps for a multi-parameter tool.

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 40%: project and merge_request_iid have descriptions, while page, per_page, and unidiff do not. The description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their effects on the returned hunks.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the exact resource: 'changed files and patch hunks for a GitLab merge request.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from broader commit-diff or singular file-patch tools among the siblings.

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 use when a GitLab merge request's changed files and hunks are needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to similar tools like get_merge_request_file_patch or list_commit_diffs. The context is clear from the resource named, but alternatives are not discussed.

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