list_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm that it only reads data or mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, or pagination. This is a minor gap for a simple read operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is clear and scannable for an agent.

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 the tool's simplicity (two params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the essential purpose and the optional filter. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but such details are likely in the output schema and not critical for a listing operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains project_id as the project context and status as an optional filter, aligning with the schema's default null. However, it does not elaborate on acceptable status values or any format constraints, leaving some ambiguity given no enums are defined.

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 ('List'), the resource ('Change Requests'), and the scope ('for a project'), plus an optional filter. This distinguishes it from change-related siblings like get_change (single fetch) and create_change (creation), and it aligns with the name and required project_id parameter.

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 description implies when to use the tool—listing changes for a project—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't state that get_change should be used for a single change, nor does it advise against using it without a project_id. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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