get_changeset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this. The added requirement of SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, disclosing a non-obvious precondition. However, it does not describe return details or error behavior, but the read-only nature is well covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and the scripting prerequisite, but does not explain what 'details' are returned or differentiate from related update-set tools. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by the intuitive nature of 'get details'.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'sys_id_or_name' described as 'Update set sys_id or name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get details of an update set' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (update set/changeset). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_update_sets or get_current_update_set, though the singular resource and 'details' imply a focused retrieval.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'. This gives a necessary condition but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_update_sets for enumeration or get_current_update_set for the active set. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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