Get Merge Request Approval Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making the tool's safety profile clear. Description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, meaning of 'effective'). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. Missing some detail but concise and to the point.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits pagination info and parameter purposes. However, annotations cover safety. Complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention project_id, merge_request_iid (both required) or pagination params (page, per_page). No parameter info is added beyond the schema itself.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'effective approval rules', and context 'to a merge request'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_project_approval_rules' (project-level) and 'gitlab_get_merge_request' (general MR details).

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?

Description implies usage context (when you need approval rules for a specific MR) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives like project-level approval rules or other MR queries.

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