get_merge_request_conflicts

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'It is read-only'. It adds value beyond the annotation by explaining error behavior ('returns ... an error when the request cannot be evaluated') and clarifying that conflicts are not resolved. This gives the agent a fuller picture of what to expect without contradicting any annotation.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then immediately follow with usage and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 that this is a simple read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage timing, access requirements, and error behavior. The agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% — both parameters (`project_id` and `merge_request_iid`) are already clearly described. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('conflicts of a merge request'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tool `merge_merge_request` by noting it reports conflicts and does not resolve them. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool 'before attempting `merge_merge_request`' and clarifies that it does not resolve conflicts, which guides the agent on when to choose this over the merge tool. It also mentions the requirement of project and merge request access, providing additional context for invocation.

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