Get merge request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the included data fields and optional comments/attachments, but does not disclose additional behavior such as defaults or response structure beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction.

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?

Single, information-dense sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Full merge request') and enumerates key contents without extraneous words.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists main returned sections (branches, approvals, merge status, pipeline, comments, attachments), giving a reasonable picture of the tool's output. Could be more detailed about exact response shape, but adequate for a read operation with high schema coverage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 80%, so the schema does heavy lifting. The description adds context that comments and attachments are optional, aligning with schema booleans, but does not explain merge_request_iid or project_id fallback beyond schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('merge request'), and clarifies scope with 'Full' plus enumerated content (branches, approvals, merge status, pipeline, comments, attachments), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request_diff and 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?

The description implies use when full merge request details are needed, listing included data, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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