Get Change Review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it states that pending changes must be shown verbatim, the agent must never decide, and drift/stale decisions are reported rather than silently applied. This gives an agent a clear mental model of the tool's side-effect-free, user-decision-oriented behavior.

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 three focused sentences: a summary, a return-content enumeration, and a behavioral instruction. It is front-loaded, avoids repetition, and every 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?

Although an output schema exists and the description richly covers return semantics and decision handling, it leaves the only input parameter completely undocumented and provides no explicit usage context beyond the implied 'present pending changes.' For a tool with a single required parameter, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 sole required parameter, run_dir, has zero schema description coverage and is never explained in the description. The description does not compensate for this gap by stating what run_dir means, what format it should use, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns per-deliverable annotated changes paired with decision state, including decoded diff and every annotated change. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like record_change_decision and get_run_status, which involve writing decisions or reporting status rather than retrieving review content.

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?

The instruction to present each pending change verbatim and let the user decide implies the tool is used when delivering pending changes for human judgment. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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