MR Diffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context on the output content (per-file additions/deletions, diff refs), which is beneficial beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence of 16 words that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no wasted space.

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 low complexity, comprehensive annotations, and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its output. It distinguishes from sibling tools and provides sufficient context for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as projectPath and iid.

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 retrieves diff statistics for a merge request, specifying per-file additions/deletions and diff refs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_commits or get_merge_request_context.

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 implies usage for obtaining diff statistics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_merge_request_commits or get_merge_request_pipelines. No when-not or exclusions are given.

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