openspec_list_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how the 'includeArchived' parameter affects results, potential limits on the list size, or any side effects—leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, highly concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is too brief given the abundance of sibling tools. It fails to clarify what distinguishes this list from 'openspec_list_pending_approvals' or 'openspec_list_reviews', leaving the agent without sufficient context to confidently select this tool over others.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('includeArchived'), so the schema already explains its meaning. The tool description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 'List all OpenSpec change proposals' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (change proposals), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'openspec_show_change' (which focuses on a single item) or 'openspec_list_pending_approvals', leaving some ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list all vs. pending approvals), and offers no prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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