Get commit merge requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return shape ('wrapper containing the original response and a list of MergeRequest models') and the ParameterError failure mode, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page/max_pages parameters.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose sentence, but the auto-generated Args/Returns/Raises block spends a line on a meaningless '**kwargs' catch-all. The Returns line earns its place; the Args and Raises lines largely do not.

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 39 mostly undocumented parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema and no required-parameter indication, the definition is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot tell that commit_hash is the key input, nor how to page or filter results, without guessing from parameter names.

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 39 parameters, and the description compensates with only '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.' Nothing explains what commit_hash, project_id, ref_name, state, page, per_page or the many unrelated GitLab fields (note, coverage, target_url, start_sha) mean or which are required for this call.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get merge requests associated with a commit'), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like gitlab_get_commit or gitlab_get_project_merge_requests. It stops short of 5 because it never differentiates itself explicitly from those related retrieval tools or indicates how the commit is identified.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of which parameter identifies the commit, and no exclusion pointing to alternatives such as gitlab_get_merge_requests or gitlab_get_project_merge_requests. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the tool name.

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