list_change_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, return format, ordering, or edge cases. It only restates the filter options already visible in the schema, offering minimal value beyond the structured data.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundant information and every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 optional parameters fully described in the schema and strong annotations. However, the description omits details like the meaning of the query parameter (encoded filter), defaults, or what the response contains. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive for an agent operating without additional context.

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% (limit, query, state are all documented). The description mentions 'state or query' but does not add meaning beyond the schema; it omits the 'limit' parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds little extra semantic value.

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'), the resource ('change requests'), and the optional filters ('by state or query'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_change_request, create_change_request, and update_change_request by the 'list' verb and focus on retrieval with filtering.

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 usage for listing/filtering change requests but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_change_request for a single record). It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so the usage context is only inferred.

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