changes_submitted_together

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function, omitting any details about side effects, prerequisites, input behavior, output format, or limitations. 'Computes and lists' hints at a read-only operation but doesn't go further.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly structured, earning 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only one sentence. It fails to define what 'changes submitted together' means, how options affect behavior, or what the result contains, making it incomplete for practical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention change_id, options, or gerrit_base_url. The only implicit reference is 'a given CL' mapping to change_id, but without definition, the agent is left guessing.

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 tool's verb ('Computes and lists') and resource ('changes that would be submitted together with a given CL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_changes or get_change_details, which either search broadly or fetch a single change.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It implies a specific use case (finding changes submitted together) but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison with the many sibling tools.

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