get_merge_request_commits

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it returns all commits or a subset. Given the absence of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, which is helpful, but it is slightly verbose for a simple retrieval tool. Some sentences could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

The description adequately covers the return format but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and clear parameter semantics. With no annotations and 100% required parameters, it is not fully complete but sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 description lists parameters but describes 'filters' as optional despite the schema requiring it as a string. It does not explain the format or possible values for filters, and the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage). This lack of clarity undermines correct parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'commits for a merge request', making the tool's purpose clear. Among sibling tools like get_merge_request_details and get_merge_request_diff, it uniquely retrieves commits, so no confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_merge_request_diff for diffs, list_merge_requests for listing). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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