get_merge_request_reviews

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 the action ('Get') but does not describe traits like read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It does not explain what 'reviews and discussions' entail, the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the 'Internal ID of the merge request'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or usage notes, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('reviews and discussions for a specific merge request'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_details' or 'get_commit_discussions', which might also retrieve related information, preventing a score of 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, such as 'get_merge_request_details' for general info or 'get_commit_discussions' for commit-specific discussions. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, relying solely on the implied need for merge request reviews.

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