Get notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the issue-scoping behavior, but omits pagination, whether system notes are included, and does not explain why the schema shows no required parameters despite saying "a specific issue".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though brevity comes at the cost of needed parameter and behavior detail.

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?

There is no output schema, 5 undocumented parameters, and no explanation of the return shape or filtering. For a tool whose schema gives no parameter documentation, the description should do more to make the call unambiguous.

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 5 parameters, and the description only implies that issue_iid/project_id are relevant. It says nothing about note_id, body, or data, which are unusual for a get operation and are left entirely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (notes), and scope (for a specific issue), which distinguishes it from gitlab_get_note (single note) and gitlab_create_note. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops 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?

"For a specific issue" implies the usage context (issue-scoped note listing), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_note for a single note or gitlab_get_issue for the issue itself.

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