gitlab_get_merge_request_changes

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

The description discloses the 2KB truncation per file and directs to gitlab_get_file for full content, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). No contradiction with annotations.

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, uses a brief introductory sentence, then provides a bullet list of examples and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the key behavior (truncated diffs) and provides context for when to use alternative tools. The tool is simple (2 params, read-only), and the description is complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by providing an example (mr_iid=42) and explaining the project_path default and environment variable usage, going beyond the schema.

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 lists changed files in a merge request with truncated diffs, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request and gitlab_get_file by specifying 'list changed files' vs. full details or raw file retrieval.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('code-review-style queries') and when not to use it for full content, directing to gitlab_get_file. It includes examples and mentions the 2KB truncation limit.

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