get_merge_request_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'get', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is safe (no side effects), mention any required permissions, or describe the output format. The presence of an output schema alleviates some burden, but the description lacks detail on behavioral traits.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise with no fluff, but it may be too succinct given the lack of parameter explanations.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 required string parameters) and the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not define what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it explain the parameters or provide usage context. The output schema helps but is not enough.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what 'mr_id', 'platform', and 'project_id' represent. Without this, an agent cannot determine the correct values for these parameters.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific merge request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_merge_requests' (which lists) and 'get_merge_request_diff' (which gets a diff).

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 when full details of a merge request are needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_merge_request_diff' or 'get_merge_request_commits', nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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