get_mr_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output includes diff_refs (base_sha/head_sha/start_sha) required for creating discussions. No behavioral contradictions or omissions.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral detail (diff_refs) and links to a related tool. Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers its purpose and the nature of its output (diff summary and diff_refs). It lacks a full description of all return fields but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions 'Project ID' and 'MR IID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 returns the file changes (diff summary) of a merge request, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'file changes (diff summary)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request or list_merge_requests, which serve different purposes.

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 explains the primary use case (getting diff_refs for line-positioned discussions) and implicitly suggests when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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