gitlab_get_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get details' implying a read operation, but does not mention that it is non-destructive, safe, or any rate limits/auth needs. The description is minimal and does not go beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus two parameter docstrings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loads the purpose and then details parameters efficiently.

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 simplicity of the tool (get by IID) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It identifies the key parameters and their purpose. Could mention that it returns the full merge request object, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or required permissions.

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 carries full burden. It explains 'mr_iid' as the IID shown in UI (e.g., !123) and 'project_path' with example 'group/project', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's empty descriptions. However, it does not specify that 'project_path' is optional or default behavior.

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?

Clearly states 'Get details of a merge request by its project-level IID.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a merge request' are specific. The mention of project-level IID distinguishes it from global MR lookups and sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_merge_requests'.

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?

Description implies usage when a specific MR IID is known but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like 'gitlab_list_merge_requests' for listing. No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it are provided.

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