get_merge_request_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', which is already implied by the tool name, and gives no information about response behavior, authorization needs, or how versions relate to MR diffs.

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 one short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, and the sentence mostly expands the tool name rather than adding substantive 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?

There is no output schema and no annotation context. The description does not explain that project_id, merge_request_iid, and version_id are needed to identify a specific version, nor how to discover valid version IDs from sibling tools.

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%, so the schema fully documents project_id, version_id, merge_request_iid, and unidiff. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'Get a specific version of a merge request' adds no new information about what a version is. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_merge_request_diffs or list_merge_request_versions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative version/diff endpoints. An agent is not told that version_id would typically come from list_merge_request_versions, nor given any exclusions.

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