list_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a project-scoped list with an optional status filter, which conveys a likely read-only behavior. It does not address pagination, ordering, or edge cases, but for this simple list operation the listing behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb and main resource are front-loaded, and the optional status filter is stated briefly without repeating schema information.

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 output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The core action is clear and useful for a simple two-parameter tool, but the missing status vocabulary and lack of pagination/ordering guidance leave some practical gaps for agents calling the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate, but it only says the list can be filtered by status. Status values are not enumerated or described, and project_id formatting is not meaningfully expanded on. This leaves ambiguity about what valid status values the tool expects.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'Change Requests for a project,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_files, and from per-change tools like get_change. The optional status filter is also made explicit.

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—when a project-level enumeration of change requests is needed—and mentions the optional status filter. However, it does not state conditions for using alternatives, such as get_change or list_projects, and provides no exclusion criteria.

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