get_mr_changes_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, potential rate limits, or what exactly 'changes' includes (e.g., file diffs, stats). The description is too sparse to offer transparency beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could potentially include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool is straightforward, but the description lacks any context about what the diff output contains or any constraints. However, since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere. Given the simplicity and good schema coverage, a moderate score is appropriate, though more context would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions: 'Project ID or path' and 'Merge request internal ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get the changes') and the resource ('for a merge request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_merge_request_tool (which likely returns MR metadata) and list_merge_requests_tool (which lists MRs) by focusing specifically on diffs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or context. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings. No alternatives are referenced.

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