get_change_request

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the meaning of 'full details' and the identifier scope, but does not disclose return format, field coverage, or access requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and identifier format with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the tool uniquely, explains the one parameter's meaning, and is safe due to annotations. Minor gap: 'full details' is vague about which fields are returned, but this is not critical for a standard retrieval.

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 schema has one parameter with a description covering 100% of the semantics. The description simply repeats the schema's parameter description ('Change number (CHG...) or sys_id'), adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a change request'), and clearly identifies the lookup mechanism ('by number (CHG...) or sys_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_change_requests and other getters by resource.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need full details of a specific change request, identified by its number or sys_id. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., list_change_requests for browsing), but the context is clear enough.

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