Get commit discussions

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds only that a wrapper with a list of Discussion models is returned and that ParameterError may be raised — modest value given no output schema exists. It omits pagination behavior entirely, which matters for a tool with page/per_page/max_pages defaults, and its '**kwargs: Additional parameters' claim conflicts with the schema's additionalProperties: false.

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?

It is short but the length is spent on generated docstring scaffolding ('Args: **kwargs', 'Returns: Response', 'Raises: ParameterError') rather than on information an agent needs. The tool's actual identity is front-loaded, but the remaining sections are filler.

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?

For a 40-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and an ambiguous required-parameter set, the description should explain at minimum how the commit is identified and how to paginate. Neither is covered, so an agent must guess among mutually redundant parameters (ref vs ref_name vs commit_hash vs branch).

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% across 40 parameters, and the description supplies nothing — not even which parameter identifies the commit (commit_hash, ref, ref_name all appear in the schema but only project_id is required). The single 'kwargs' line actively obscures the fact that the caller must select among dozens of concrete, undocumented parameters.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Get discussions on a commit.' An agent can tell this fetches commit discussion threads rather than a project or merge request. It does not differentiate from the very similar sibling gitlab_get_commit_comments, which is the one distinction an agent most needs here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_commit_comments, gitlab_get_commit, or gitlab_get_notes, nor on prerequisites such as read access or which identifier selects the commit. The description stops at the bare purpose line.

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