get_merge_request

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, or whether the tool returns all fields. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides minimal context.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every part is necessary and informative without any redundant text.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it does not mention return value structure or any side effects. Given the output schema exists, this is acceptable but could be slightly more complete with usage hints.

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 description provides explicit semantic meaning for both parameters: 'project_path: Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project')' and 'mr_iid: The internal ID of the merge request within the project.' Given 0% schema description coverage, these explanations perfectly compensate by clarifying usage and format.

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 clearly states 'Get details of a specific merge request,' specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'details of a merge request.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_merge_request_changes' or 'get_merge_request_comments' which target specific aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_merge_requests' or 'get_merge_request_changes.' There are no criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely 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.