Merge request details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Returns MR metadata' aligns but doesn't add significantly. However, it lists specific fields returned, which gives the agent a concrete sense of the output shape. This adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Returns MR metadata') and enumerates key fields. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 description lists the specific metadata fields returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's output shape. For a read-only tool with good annotations and a clear purpose, this is sufficient, though it could mention that the URL is included.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The tool description does not repeat parameter details but adds context about conditional resolution ('Omit with repo_path to resolve from current branch') via the schema's own description of merge_request_iid. This reinforces usage but does not add substantial new information beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it returns specific MR metadata (title, state, branches, reviewers, labels, head pipeline, approvals, URL), establishing a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_mr_merge_status (which returns only merge status) and gitlab_get_mr_context (which returns context). The description is unambiguous about what the tool retrieves.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools or conditions for using one over another. While the sibling list is provided externally, the description itself offers no usage direction.

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