MR Reviewers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context about what specific data is returned (approval status and reviewer states), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the optional credentials parameter, or response format details.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes specific details about what data is retrieved. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 (retrieving specific MR metadata), rich annotations (safety profile fully covered), and complete parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the response structure (e.g., format of approval/reviewer data).

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (projectPath, iid, userCredentials). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining format expectations or usage nuances. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 specific action ('Get approval and reviewer status') and resource ('for a merge request'), with precise details about what information is retrieved ('including who approved and review states'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_merge_requests' (which lists MRs) and 'get_merge_request_diffs' (which shows code changes).

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 context by specifying it's for retrieving approval/reviewer status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_merge_requests' (which might include basic reviewer info) or 'search_merge_requests' (which searches across MRs). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond what the parameters indicate.

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