Get Merge Policy

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful interpretation of the isDefault field, clarifying what it means when no policy was configured. No side effects are described, but none are expected for a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a meaningful clarification about isDefault without unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the policy contains and the meaning of isDefault. It also notes the project context prerequisite. It could elaborate further on response shape, but the essentials are present.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter specId as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification.' The description adds little beyond the schema, but the 100% schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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?

Clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (merge policy of a spec), and describes what the policy includes (reviewers required and guards). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request and list_merge_requests.

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?

Provides a prerequisite by noting 'Requires project context,' which implies the agent must ensure a project context is set. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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