get_merge_request_notes

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, and the description adds that it 'returns note records' and that errors are reported by GitLab. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not detail pagination behavior or output structure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance and behavioral notes. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with 6 parameters, annotations covering read-only, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative selection, and error behavior. It does not describe the exact note record fields, but that is minor given the schema and clear naming. Overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 all six parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, page, per_page, sort, order_by) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 'List notes for a merge request' and explicitly distinguishes itself from `mr_discussions` by noting it returns flat notes while the sibling handles thread structure and resolution state. This provides strong differentiation among many note-related sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to list flat notes on a merge request; use `mr_discussions` when thread structure and resolution state are required.' It also notes the tool is read-only, which is additional usage context.

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