MR context (diff + pipeline + discussions)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it returns diffs and optionally traces/discussions. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's primary function. No superfluous information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return format. It states the returned content types (diff, traces, discussions) but lacks detail on structure or how they are combined. While adequate for simple use, completeness is limited.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already explains project_id, repo_path, and merge_request_iid, so the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 title 'MR context (diff + pipeline + discussions)' and description explicitly state the tool returns changes/diff and optionally failed job traces and review discussions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request (which returns metadata) and gitlab_get_mr_discussions (which only gets discussions).

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 implies when to use (when needing combined diff, traces, and discussions) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. Given sibling tools for individual components, explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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