gitlab_get_merge_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose the read-only nature beyond the verb 'get', error behavior for non-existent merge requests, required permissions, or which metadata fields are returned. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. It is slightly under-specified, but not verbose or poorly structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return shape, error handling, and parameter format guidance. While the tool is simple, the description does not carry its share of the burden.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not clarify whether `project` is a path or ID, nor explain that `mergeRequestIid` is the project-internal IID (vs a global MR ID).

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get one GitLab merge request') and the word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `gitlab_list_merge_requests`. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use/exclusion guidance is provided. The word 'one' weakly implies this tool is for retrieving a specific merge request (as opposed to listing all with `gitlab_list_merge_requests`), but the description does not state when to select this over alternatives or any prerequisites.

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