mr_review_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Pure data, no LLM' and 'Collapses several platform API calls into one snapshot,' disclosing that it is a read-only aggregator. It also details the return structure, but omits potential performance implications or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose sentence, adds key differentiators, then presents args and returns in a scannable format. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists all return fields, notes the aggregated nature, and provides usage context. It could mention auth requirements or failure scenarios, but these are probably less critical for this tool type.

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 schema lists a single 'url' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by defining it as a 'Full GitLab merge request URL,' which clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 states the tool gets a merge request's review status, specifically metadata, discussions, and resolution. It also distinguishes from siblings by describing it as a single snapshot that collapses several API calls, making it clear this is an overview tool rather than a diff-focused one.

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 directive 'Start here to orient before diving into the diff' provides clear usage context, suggesting this is the first tool to use when reviewing a merge request. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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