gitlab_get_mr_commits

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

The description explicitly marks the operation as 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait indicating safety. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the 'limit' parameter defaults to 50, how results are ordered, or what happens with empty results. It adds value but remains minimal.

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 sentence of 6 words, containing no redundant information. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the operation type.

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?

Although the tool has a complex output schema (context indicates it exists), the description does not mention pagination, ordering, fields returned, or how the 'limit' parameter works. For a list tool with multiple parameters, the description insufficiently prepares the agent for proper invocation.

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 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. While 'project' and 'mr_iid' are somewhat intuitive, 'limit' is ambiguous without context (e.g., maximum number of commits).

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 'List' and the resource 'commits in a merge request', specifying the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_commits' (which likely lists all commits in a project) and 'gitlab_get_commit_diff' (which gets diff of a specific commit).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitlab_get_commits' or 'gitlab_search_code'. There are no use case examples, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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