Get Merge Request Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination up to maxNotes/maxCommits, filtering to non-system notes by default, inclusion of pipeline summary, reviewers, and closing issues.

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?

Two sentences: first lists bundled content, second gives usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description lists the components (body, notes, commits, pipeline summary, reviewers, closing issues) but does not explain the output structure or format. With no output schema, the agent may need more detail on the returned fields. Adequate but not thorough.

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 with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description restates that notes are paginated and filtered by default, which aligns with schema but does not add new meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool bundles multiple pieces of information (MR body, notes, commits, pipeline summary, reviewers, closing issues) into one call. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives (get_merge_requests, get_notes, etc.) that would be needed otherwise.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of fanning out across get_merge_requests + get_notes + ... when investigating an MR,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario and naming alternatives. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the positive directive is strong.

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