getChangeset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving diff content but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 purpose and key details (commit message, author, diff). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error cases, or how results are structured (e.g., JSON fields). For a tool retrieving detailed commit data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 parameters (revision, includeDiff, diffLimit) with details like defaults and constraints. The description adds minimal value by implying diff content is included, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Get information about') and resource ('WordPress code changeset/commit'), and specifies what information is retrieved ('commit message, author, and diff'). It distinguishes from siblings like getTicket or searchTickets by focusing on code changesets rather than tickets or timelines. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getTimeline or getTracInfo, which might overlap in some contexts.

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 getTimeline or getTracInfo, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for retrieving commit details but lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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