MR merge status

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what it checks (conflicts, draft, pipeline, approvals, blocking discussions, actionable blockers), going beyond the annotation.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action ('Summarizes') and includes a concise list of what is checked. No wasted words.

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 read-only status check tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and scope adequately, and the lack of output schema is acceptable as the output format is implied by 'summarizes'.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool summarizes merge readiness, listing specific aspects like conflicts, draft, pipeline, approvals, and blockers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request which returns full details, or gitlab_get_mr_context which may provide broader context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this tool is for quick merge readiness checks while gitlab_get_merge_request provides comprehensive MR data.

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