get_mr_discussion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It describes what is returned (full message, author, file/line references, replies), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but without annotations a more explicit safety note would be stronger.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and return content, the second provides workflow guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and no word is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return content (message, author, file/line references, replies). It also references list_mr_discussions for finding UUIDs, closing the typical workflow. It slightly lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., nested vs. flat), but for a simple getter this is largely 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 has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema, only mentioning 'by UUID' and referencing list_mr_discussions, which maps to the discussionUuid parameter. This does not go beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('specific discussion thread by UUID, including all replies'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mr_discussions by focusing on a single thread identified by UUID.

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 provides explicit guidance to use list_mr_discussions to find UUIDs, which is helpful for the common flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing all discussions), so it falls short of a 5.

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