chim_list_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the HTTP method and endpoint and notes pagination support, but does not disclose other traits such as whether results are ordered, what data is returned, or any rate limits. The verb 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit safety or side-effect information is given.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the tool's core purpose and the key capability (pagination). No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 list operation with a clear endpoint and fully described parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It does not describe the return format, but as a list tool with no output schema, this gap is acceptable. The lack of annotations is mitigated by the read-only implication of 'Lists.'

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 descriptions for all three parameters (page, search, page_size). The description only adds 'Supports pagination query params,' which duplicates the schema's pagination-related parameter descriptions and does not enhance understanding of search or page_size semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: 'Lists change notifications' with a specific endpoint (GET /api/v1/changes/). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chim_list_outages and chim_list_retros by resource type, and from chim_create_change by verb (list vs. create).

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 when you need to list change notifications, and the endpoint and pagination support hint at querying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it identify any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool's name and obvious resource distinction.

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