get_merge

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral specificity beyond annotations: it discloses the exact return shape and clarifies that the tool is for inspecting, not initiating, merge progress. It doesn't fully detail possible statuses or conflict structures, but this is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 three sentences with no filler: it opens with the core action and return payload, then provides usage context and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It covers return values, when to use, and when not to use, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the only parameter, mergeId, is already documented as 'Id of the merge (from start_merge).' The description implicitly reinforces this by referencing apply_merge and start_merge, but it adds no significant new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current state of a merge'), and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (start_merge), so an agent can quickly distinguish it from other merge-related tools.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 're-check which conflicts are still unresolved before apply_merge,' and an explicit negative case with an alternative: 'When NOT to use: to start a merge (use start_merge).' This is ideal routing guidance for an agent.

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