get_merge_request_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns complete information in a single call, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what 'complete' includes, the response shape, or any payload/performance considerations, so transparency is adequate but shallow.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan. 'Complete information' and 'all data in one call' are slightly redundant, but there is no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It is incomplete regarding exactly which data the 'full' response includes and how it relates to get_merge_request, which an agent would need to know to choose and trust the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, merge_request_iid, including its type and meaning, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 description names a specific operation and resource ('Get complete information about a merge request') and signals comprehensiveness with 'all data in one call', which distinguishes it from the narrower sibling endpoints for commits, diffs, discussions, etc. However, it does not explicitly clarify how 'full' differs from get_merge_request, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The phrase 'all data in one call' implies this tool is for callers who want a complete merge request without invoking multiple sibling endpoints. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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