list_change_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, whether files include deletions/renames, or any auth/permission requirements. The description only states the basic action without additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It directly states the action and target resource, earning every word.

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 simple list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about the return value (e.g., file paths, statuses) and boundary cases like what 'modified' includes. It does not fully prepare an agent to interpret results, but given the tool's simplicity, it is borderline acceptable.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'change_id' and 'gerrit_base_url' are only defined by their names, with no added meaning about how they relate to the 'CL' mentioned. The description leaves parameter usage entirely to schema inference.

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 'Lists all files modified in the most recent patch set of a CL' uses a specific verb (lists) and resource (files modified in a CL's latest patch set), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file_diff or get_change_details. It precisely communicates the operation's scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_diff for individual file contents, get_change_details for overall CL info). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and context.

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