Get a change request by its ID

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the endpoint path but no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, whether change request must exist, or what the response contains). Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and includes the REST endpoint. No extraneous words. Perfectly concise.

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 description lacks explicit information about the return value (no output schema). For a retrieval tool, stating what is returned (e.g., 'returns the change request object') would improve completeness. Given the simplicity of the operation (two required params, read-only), the gap is moderate.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('get a change request') and identifies the resource ('by its ID'). Including the HTTP endpoint adds precision. It distinguishes from siblings that also retrieve change request-related data (e.g., changes, PDF) by focusing on the base entity retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different change request sub-resources (changes, reviews, comments, etc.), the description should explicitly state that this is the basic retrieval for the change request object itself.

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