gitlab_get_merge_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Gets' suggests a read-only operation and 'optionally commits, diffs, notes, and pipelines' indicates that include flags affect response composition. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, what defaults apply, or how the optional components alter the response, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the primary action and the optional response pieces, though the list order is minor and not fully aligned with parameter naming. It is concise without being verbose.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus six parameters and many sibling tools, this short description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the MR, which parameters are required, when to prefer this over gitlab_list_merge_requests, or what the response contains by default. An agent could make a reasonable first call, but would lack important context for robust usage.

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 schema description coverage is only 17%, yet the description does not explain the required parameters projectId and mergeRequestIid; in particular, mergeRequestIid's distinction from a global MR ID is left undocumented. The optional list partially maps to the include* booleans, but it does not connect those concepts to the actual parameter names or clarify required arguments, so it only weakly compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Gets') and a specific resource ('an MR'), and lists the optional data components (commits, diffs, notes, pipelines). It is distinguishable from sibling gitlab_list_merge_requests because it targets a single MR rather than a list. It does not explicitly name the required identifiers, but the core purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_list_merge_requests, gitlab_get_issue, or gitlab_save_merge_request. The phrase 'Gets an MR' implies use for retrieval, but no exclusions or comparison to other tools are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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