get_merge_request_approval_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — no permission requirements, no note on what happens when no approval rules exist, and no indication of the response shape beyond "details including approvers".

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and result, followed by usage context and the alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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?

A simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description conveys what comes back (approval rules and approvers) and when to call it. Minor gap: it does not clarify behavior when approvals are disabled or the MR is not in an approvable state.

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 100%, so project_id, merge_request_iid, and jmespath are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves merge request approval details including approvers. It also separates itself from the mutating sibling by naming `approve_merge_request`, so an agent can distinguish read vs write without opening a schema.

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?

"Inspect approval rules and approvers before merging" gives a concrete usage moment, and the final sentence routes state changes to `approve_merge_request`. It stops short of saying when to prefer it over `get_merge_request`, which may also surface related MR data.

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