Change status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Never writes state and is never journaled,' adding the journaling detail beyond the annotations. It also discloses fallback behavior ('with no active change'), the full list of rendered content, and the meaning of all: true. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but well structured: it front-loads the read-only orientation purpose, then details the two modes and the safety guarantee. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the final 'Never writes state' partially repeats the opening 'Read-only' framing, but every sentence otherwise adds useful 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?

For a tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers invocation modes, output contents, default behavior, fallback when no active change exists, and side-effect guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without inferring missing behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds behavioral nuance around all: true and the no-argument default, but it does not substantially extend the meaning of changeId or workspace beyond what the schema states. This matches the baseline for fully self-documenting schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a read-only orientation call that renders the active change in full or lists all changes. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like change_create and task_add by emphasizing it never writes state. The phrase 'the single way to re-orient on tracked work' makes its role unmistakable.

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 explicit usage context: use it at the start of any chat to re-orient on tracked work. It also explains the two call modes (no arguments vs all: true) and the no-active-change fallback. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the read-only framing plus sibling names like change_create and task_add make the boundary clear enough.

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