get_merge_request_commits

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

The description discloses the return format ('Formatted string with commit list and pagination info') and pagination defaults, which provides some behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention potential errors, or describe any side effects, so transparency is incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured, listing arguments and return value in a clear format without unnecessary wording. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 simple read-only query tool, the description covers the essential inputs, output shape, and pagination behavior. It lacks only minor details such as error handling or authentication requirements, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

All four parameters are described with meaningful semantics: project_id and mr_iid identify the merge request, while page and per_page govern pagination with defaults and a maximum. This fully complements the schema and gives the agent clear guidance on each parameter's purpose.

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's function: retrieving commits for a specific merge request. The verb 'Get' and the target resource 'commits in a merge request' are explicit and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_merge_request and get_merge_request_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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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