get_merge_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields (title, description, branches, status, reviewers, conflict info, MR UUID) and notes the UUID's role for update_merge_request. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or mention side effects, the verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the return payload details add valuable behavioral context.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and identifier; the second lists return values and the use case. Every word adds value, with no redundant or off-topic 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return fields, which is crucial for an agent to understand the response. It also places the tool in a workflow ('before approving or merging'). It omits potential error scenarios or permission requirements, but for a straightforward read tool, this is nearly 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'local numeric ID' to clarify mr_id, but it doesn't enrich owner/project semantics. No significant additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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: 'Get full details of a merge request by its local numeric ID.' It specifies the resource (merge request) and the identifier type, and the list of returned fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_merge_requests or update_merge_request.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to inspect an MR before approving or merging.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions.

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