Get Merge Request

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses the return composition (reviewers, decisions, comment thread), the cross-tool contract that reviewer userId values are what manage_merge_request('create') expects, the semantics of includeAuditTrail ('who-did-what history'), and the project-context prerequisite. All statements are consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: front-loaded purpose, the output cross-tool contract, the optional-parameter effect, the sibling alternative, and the prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant scoping constraint comes first.

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 3-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what will be returned, what the optional parameter adds, the call prerequisite (project context), and the sibling to use when the diff is needed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 specId, mergeRequestId, and includeAuditTrail are already fully documented. The description adds only mild color for includeAuditTrail ('who-did-what history of the spec's merge requests') beyond the schema's 'also return the audit trail', and nothing for the two required IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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') and resource ('one merge request') and enumerates the exact contents returned: reviewers, their decisions, and the comment thread. The singular 'one' also differentiates it from list_merge_requests, and the closing sentence explicitly distinguishes it from get_branch, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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 explicitly names get_branch(includeDiff) as the alternative when the caller wants what the merge would actually change, and it warns that project context is required as a prerequisite. However, the when-not guidance is partial: it routes diff-seeking callers away but does not explicitly mention list_merge_requests for browse-all scenarios.

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