get_merge_request_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'It is read-only.' It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return behavior (note object) and error conditions (invalid identifier, missing note, insufficient permission). This gives the agent a realistic picture of outcomes.

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 sentences with no filler: first states the core action, second gives routing guidance for alternatives, third discloses behavior and failure modes. Every sentence earns its place and the most important selection information is 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?

For a simple, read-only single-resource fetch with fully documented parameters and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and what errors to expect. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the result shape.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. It does add the context that the note is fetched 'by note identifier,' which lightly reinforces note_id, but overall it adds no significant parameter meaning beyond the already-complete schema.

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 verb and resource: getting a specific note for a merge request by identifier. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_merge_request_notes and mr_discussions, so an agent can quickly disambiguate this tool from its closest alternatives.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool to fetch one known merge request note, use get_merge_request_notes for a collection, and use mr_discussions for threaded context. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternatives.

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