get_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but it does not disclose whether the operation requires special permissions, what happens if the change ID doesn't exist, or whether the return is a full change object or a summary. Without annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence with no fluff and the key verb+resource pattern is front-loaded. It is concise but also minimal to the point of under-explaining, so it loses one point.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, no annotations, and many closely-related sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not outline what the response contains, what happens on unknown ID, or what related follow-up actions (e.g., reading change files) an agent might want; an agent is left with only the tool name to infer behavior.

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 explain the parameter, but it merely says 'by id', adding nothing beyond the parameter name 'change_id' and title 'Change Id'. It does not describe the expected format of the ID, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., UUID vs string).

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('a Change Request by id'), so an agent knows this is an ID-based lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_changes or read_change_file, but the singular 'by id' hints at retrieving one specific 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_changes should be used to find changes without an ID, or read_change_file for file contents within a change. The agent is left to infer use cases from the bare verb and parameter.

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