get_merge_request_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity (a read operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'merge_request_iid' clearly documented as 'Internal ID of the merge request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the parameter's role or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific merge request'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_merge_requests' (which lists multiple) and 'get_merge_request_reviews' (which focuses on reviews). However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, leaving some ambiguity compared to a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a merge request ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_merge_request_reviews' or 'list_merge_requests'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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