get_merge_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that mergeRequestIid or branchName are required (though schema shows they are optional), but this does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits like error handling or side effects are disclosed.

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, efficiently stating the purpose and parameter constraints. However, the misleading parenthesis about required parameters slightly undermines clarity. Overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on return format, error cases, or pagination. It is minimally complete for a basic retrieve operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds '(mergeRequestIid or branchName required)', which is misleading because the schema lists both as optional and only project_id is required. It also uses inconsistent naming ('branchName' vs 'source_branch'). This adds confusion rather than value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get details of a merge request' with a specific verb and resource. It adds constraints on parameters (IID or branch), making the action precise. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_merge_request_approval_state or list_merge_requests, though context implies it's for single MR details.

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 such as list_merge_requests or merge_merge_request. The description only mentions parameter requirements but fails to offer context for selection.

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