get_merge_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it 'gets information' but doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., metadata, status, comments), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of interacting with GitLab merge requests, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool with 4 parameters and likely API calls, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'workingDirectory' and 'remoteName' interact with 'projectId'). This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific GitLab merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_changes' or 'fetch_pull_request', which likely retrieve related but different information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools that deal with merge requests, pull requests, and code analysis, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for basic metadata, when to choose it over 'get_merge_request_changes' or 'fetch_pull_request', or any prerequisites for its use.

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