mr_review_context

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

The description fully discloses behavior: it extracts top-N identifiers, always runs dependency_impact, and optionally enriches if the repo was indexed. It explicitly states the semantic layer is additive and that a result with semantic_available=false is complete and actionable. It also discloses the warning condition for root not checked out and how to resolve it. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels.

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 well-structured: a concise summary sentence, a bulleted process list, a clean Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input parameters, the processing logic, dependencies on index_repo, the return format (including error/warning fields), and even setup guidance. No gaps are apparent for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 must compensate, and it does. It explains each parameter: url (Full GitLab merge request URL), root (Absolute path to local repository clone), max_symbols (Maximum changed symbols to analyze, default 8). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's specific function: 'Graph-first review context: dependency impact per changed symbol, plus optional semantic enrichment.' It uses a specific verb ('runs dependency_impact') and resource (MR diff symbols), and distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as a single-call alternative to running dependency_impact per symbol.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this as a single-call alternative to running dependency_impact separately for each changed symbol.' Also provides a precondition (requires root checked out to MR) and a remedy ('set it up with myopic worktree' and re-run). This is clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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