Get Merge Request File Diff

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., performance implications, pagination) beyond stating it fetches diffs.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with 'Step 2 for large MR review', conveying purpose efficiently with no wasted 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description lacks essential details about required inputs, output format, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'specific files' but does not explain the key parameters (file_paths, project_id, merge_request_iid, source_branch, unidiff) or their roles, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 tool fetches diffs for specific files from a merge request and positions it as 'Step 2 for large MR review', distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request_diffs that likely fetch all diffs.

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 implies use in a large MR review workflow as step 2, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use, leaving the agent to infer context.

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