Get change request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the failure modes (MissingParameterError when sys_id is absent, ParameterError for invalid change_type or deserialization failure) and the Pydantic-model response shape, but it is silent on pagination/limits despite exposing sysparm_limit and sysparm_offset.

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 docstring-style layout is scannable and front-loads the purpose, but the :param/:type/:raises formatting is verbose boilerplate, and the volume of documentation is badly skewed — heavy detail on two parameters while the rest of a 22-parameter surface is ignored.

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 tool exposing 22 optional parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It also implicitly treats change_request_sys_id as required (raises MissingParameterError) while the schema lists zero required parameters, leaving the agent unsure whether the call is valid without it.

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% across 22 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only change_request_sys_id and change_type, leaving roughly twenty parameters (state, task_sys_id, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, sysparm_query, response_length, etc.) entirely unexplained in both schema and description. It adds real meaning for the two it covers but fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

"Retrieve details of a specific change request" states a clear verb (retrieve) and resource (change request), narrowed to a single record by sys_id. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling change-request getters (get_change_requests, get_change_request_models, get_change_request_ci, get_change_request_tasks), leaving the agent to infer the single-record-vs-list distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use context: no mention of get_change_requests as the list alternative, no prerequisites, and no note that filtering by change_type or other fields is possible. The agent must guess the correct entry point among a large family of change-request tools.

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