get_mr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by clarifying that iid is the URL number (not global id) and that diff_refs is the source for comment_on_mr_line. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only intent, auth needs, or error behavior, which would make it fully transparent.

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 concise: two to three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, fields, usage sequence, and a cross-tool dependency. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 its simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (key fields listed) and how to use it in the larger workflow (after listing, before diff). The mention of diff_refs usage for comment_on_mr_line makes it contextually complete.

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%, and the schema already fully documents both parameters (project and iid). The description essentially restates the iid nuance already in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. 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 it provides complete merge request details (title, description, branches, reviewers, merge status, diff_refs), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mr_diff and list_mr_discussions by explicitly listing the unique fields and noting that diff_refs is needed by comment_on_mr_line.

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 gives explicit sequence guidance: 'Use depois de localizar o MR numa listagem, antes de ler o diff' (use after locating, before reading the diff). It also explains the dependency for comment_on_mr_line, clarifying when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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