Get Merge Request Code Context

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about 'high-signal' and 'token-budgeted output', implying output is trimmed for relevance, but does not detail how that works or other behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence with key terms front-loaded. No unnecessary 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?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and rich sibling tools, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what 'code context' includes, how the token budget operates, return format, or how filters interact. The tool's complexity demands a much more thorough description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should heavily compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'include/exclude filters, sorting, and token-budgeted output'. Key parameters like mode, languages, extensions, max_files, context_lines, list_only are not described. The enums for mode and sort are also not explained.

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 indicates the tool provides 'MR code context' with features like filters, sorting, and token budgeting. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning these capabilities, though 'code context' could be more precise (e.g., diffs vs. file contents).

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 like gitlab_get_merge_request_file_diff or gitlab_get_merge_request_diffs. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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