get_merge_request

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

The description adds context about extra API calls when include_summaries is true, but it incorrectly states that mergeRequestIid or branchName are 'required', conflicting with the input schema where both are optional. This misguides the agent about required parameters.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key requirements, then optional behavior. No redundant or ambiguous phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description could better explain what 'details' include or the structure of the response. It covers the input conditions but lacks information about return format or fields, leaving the agent to infer.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by specifying that one of merge_request_iid or source_branch is needed, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, the naming inconsistency (mergeRequestIid vs merge_request_iid) slightly reduces clarity.

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 'Get details of a merge request', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_merge_requests and other specific get tools, and clarifies the need for either IID or branch name.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to get details of a single MR) and provides a condition for using include_summaries. However, it does not explicitly exclude using alternative get tools like get_merge_request_approval_state or mention when not to use it.

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