Get Merge Request Discussion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description does add value by saying the response includes all notes plus resolution state, which is non-obvious without an output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or truncated note sets.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the ID-discovery pointer. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the note-and-resolution-state mention is a valuable return-content hint, and the ID sourcing is covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained project_id and merge_request_iid leave a real gap an agent would notice at call time.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only clarifies discussion_id as "one MR discussion thread" whose ID comes from the list tool. merge_request_iid is never explained, and project_id (optional, nullable) is entirely unmentioned, leaving the agent unable to tell whether it defaults to a configured project.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one MR discussion thread by discussion_id") and states the payload ("all its notes and resolution state"). The contrast with the list-based sibling is implicit in "one ... by discussion_id," so an agent can distinguish it from gitlab_list_merge_request_discussions without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to gitlab_list_merge_request_discussions to obtain IDs, which is the main prerequisite for invoking this tool. It offers no guidance on when to prefer sibling single-note or thread-resolution tools instead, so an alternative-condition statement is missing.

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