Get commit merge requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds only that it raises ParameterError on invalid input and returns a wrapper containing MergeRequest models, which is modest added value. It says nothing about pagination limits, how many MRs can be returned, or auth requirements across namespaces.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the Sphinx-style Args/Returns/Raises block is pure boilerplate that conveys no parameter information. The content that remains is short but padded with template noise.

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 no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description should at minimum identify which parameters matter and how the commit is specified. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to determine that commit_hash/ref_name are relevant despite not being required.

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 offers nothing — it reduces everything to '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request,' which is actively misleading since the schema is additionalProperties:false with a required project_id. Neither the required parameter nor how the commit is identified (commit_hash is not even required) is explained.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Get merge requests associated with a commit.' An agent can tell this apart from gitlab_get_merge_requests or gitlab_get_project_merge_requests at a glance. No explicit sibling comparison is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance is provided. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the commit-scoped variant among many merge-request retrieval siblings.

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