Get change

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: related IDs come back with names beside them and status/priority labels are localized to the GLPI user's language, which materially affects how the agent should interpret the output.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description is adequate for a simple ID lookup, though it omits error/not-found behavior or permission requirements.

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 all four parameters (fields, format, changeId, expand_dropdowns) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only loosely echoes the dropdown-expansion behavior ('names beside the IDs') without adding format or syntax detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a change by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like glpi_list_changes or glpi_get_ticket, but the verb+resource is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. glpi_list_changes for browsing, glpi_update_change for modification), and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by 'by ID'.

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