get_merge_request_approvals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a read-only retrieval operation via 'Get', but it does not mention response shape, pagination, authentication, or whether approvals are embedded elsewhere.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema documents its only parameter, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the approval information includes (e.g., approvers, status, rules). The description is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about the returned data.

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%, and the only parameter, merge_request_iid, is already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('approval status and information for a merge request'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_merge_request_commits or get_merge_request_diffs. It is specific and not a tautology, though 'information' is a bit vague.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_merge_request_full or get_merge_request. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is specifically for approvals, and it is not told whether another tool already includes approval data.

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