MR Commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about excluding merge commits and pagination support (implied by 'first' and 'after' parameters), but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs beyond the schema, or error behaviors. With annotations providing core safety info, this earns a baseline score for adding some 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get commits for a merge request' establishes the action, '(excluding merge commits)' adds critical filtering context, and 'with commit count and details' clarifies the output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks output schema, but the description mentions 'commit count and details' to partially compensate. The main gap is missing sibling tool differentiation, but overall it provides adequate context for a read-only query tool.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'excluding merge commits' relates to which parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('commits for a merge request'), specifying scope ('excluding merge commits') and output details ('commit count and details'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_diffs' or 'get_merge_requests', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_diffs' for diff-based analysis or 'get_merge_requests' for MR metadata, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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