get_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no additional behavioral details beyond the verb 'get'. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving the burden on the description entirely unmet.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the purpose without fluff.

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 operation with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and action, though it does not elaborate on the return structure or possible error cases, which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 descriptions for all three parameters are clear and complete (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only refers to 'its ID', which could ambiguously map to any of the three. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and the resource (change request/merge request) with a specific identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_change_requests by indicating it retrieves detailed information for a single item.

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 fetching a single change request by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as list_change_requests. Guidance is only inferred from the verb and parameter.

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