list_change_requests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful pagination context: 'limit/offset paginate — this returns one bounded page, not the full table.' However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, the return format, default limit values, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the pagination caveat is clearly stated. While it is effective in brevity, it omits important context that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 8 optional parameters, only 13% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain any filtering parameters, default behavior, or return value structure. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly beyond basic pagination.

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 only 13% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The tool description only adds meaning for limit and offset via the pagination note, but does not explain 'type', 'state', 'category', 'timeframe', or 'assignment_group'. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so for most parameters.

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 'List' and the resource 'change requests', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this list tool from siblings like get_change_request_details or list_incidents, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention filters, intended use cases, or when a different tool like get_change_request_details would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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