read_change_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly indicates this is a read-only operation and introduces the important 'head revision' scope. However, it does not clarify what happens for missing paths, whether the path is absolute or relative, or how 'head revision' is defined in this system.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and the exact scope without repeating the tool name.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the basics and distinguishes the operation context. It does not, however, state what the return value looks like, and given no output schema and several similar read siblings, a bit more context would make the tool unambiguous.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps 'file' to path and 'Change Request' to change_id, which gives basic meaning. But it does not explain accepted path formats, change ID format, or the relationship between the path and the Change Request's fileset.

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 and resource: 'Read a file' in the context of a 'Change Request head revision'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the siblings read_file and read_project_file, which operate on other scopes.

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 the agent needs the version of a file at a Change Request's head revision. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over read_file or read_project_file, and it gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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