get_commit_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via 'paginated' and start/limit parameters. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or the format of returned data. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 concise, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. It efficiently uses space, though the args list largely mirrors the schema with added defaults. No superfluous content.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not overly rich. It explains pagination and required parameters but does not clarify what information is returned for each changed file (e.g., path, change type) or how it differs from related tools. Could be more complete.

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 adds significant value by explaining all 5 parameters: project_key, repo_slug, commit_id, start (default 0), limit (default 25), and notes that commit_id should be the full hash. This goes beyond the schema which only provides types.

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 'Get the list of files changed in a commit (paginated)' clearly states the verb (get), resource (list of files changed in a commit), and key feature (paginated). This is distinct from siblings like 'get_commit_diff' which returns diffs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_commit_diff' (for actual diffs) or 'list_commits' (for commit metadata). The description implies usage for getting changed file lists but does not explicitly state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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