Get Merge Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the returns section discloses the output format (YAML containing title, state, author, branches, reviewers). However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 with a clear one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple get operation, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the output schema exists and the description already explains the returned fields. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with concrete examples: project key ('ij'), repository name ('ultimate'), and review_id (numeric or full review ID). This adds significant 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?

Clearly states 'Get details of a specific merge request.' Differentiates from siblings like get_merge_requests (list all) and get_merge_request_timeline (timeline) by focusing on a single MR's details.

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 implicitly indicates use for retrieving a specific MR's details via the presence of review_id, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_merge_requests or get_merge_request_timeline. More explicit sibling comparison would improve clarity.

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