get_change_request_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and implies a safe, non-destructive action, but it does not describe edge cases (e.g., what happens if the change_id is invalid) or any limitations. While the description is not misleading, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise with no redundant wording, though it could potentially be more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. It states the tool's output (change request with tasks) but does not cover error scenarios or any special conditions. For a simple getter this is adequate, but it leaves out nothing critical. The lack of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (change_id) as 'sys_id or change number' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action (Fetch) and the resource (single change request) and specifies that it includes associated change tasks. This distinguishes it from list_change_requests which fetches multiple, so the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_change_requests or get_changeset_details. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or when the list variant should be chosen, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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