Get Merge Request Diff

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it lists diffs, confirming read-only behavior. No contradictions. Slight gap: does not mention pagination, but acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 purpose, no filler words. Efficient 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 no output schema and missing parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. However, given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is marginally adequate but not fully complete for agent usage.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, page, per_page). The agent has no semantic guidance for parameter usage beyond names and types.

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 'List the file diffs for a merge request' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('file diffs') with clear context ('for a merge request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_merge_request' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request_changes'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to prefer it over 'gitlab_get_merge_request_changes' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request_commits'. No context or exclusion criteria are given.

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