Get Merge Request Discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by revealing that it auto-fetches later pages to include older notes, a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the extra pagination info is significant.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides key behavior.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information on required parameters and return format, leaving gaps for an agent. Annotations help, but the description should offer more guidance.

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 the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters, not even the required project_id and merge_request_iid. It hints at pagination via 'auto-fetches later pages' but omits details on page, per_page, and max_pages.

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 explicitly states the tool lists discussions for a merge request, using clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request_commits or gitlab_get_merge_request_pipelines by focusing on discussions.

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 usage by stating it lists discussions, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The auto-pagination hint is useful but not a full usage guide.

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