get_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'get detailed information' implying a read operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is safe. For a read tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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 with a category tag, no redundant words, and clearly conveys the core purpose. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not mention what format the result is in, how to handle errors, or any edge cases. An AI agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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% so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'by its local ID' which aligns with the 'localId' parameter but does not provide extra context like formatting requirements or relationships between parameters.

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 detailed information about a specific change request (merge request) by its local ID' clearly states the action (get), resource (change request), and scope (by local ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_change_requests' which lists multiple, and 'create_change_request' which creates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention any sibling tools. The sibling list exists but the description itself offers no usage context.

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