list_change_requests

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It mentions functional capabilities (filtering, pagination, sorting) but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. For a list operation it is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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 concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists key features without redundancy.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main capabilities but omits details on return structure, error handling, or limits. It is adequate for a standard list tool but leaves some gaps.

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% and each parameter has detailed descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary of filter categories (repository, author, reviewer, etc.) that mirrors the schema definitions, offering marginal added value over the schema.

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 'List change requests' with verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_change_request and create_change_request. It also lists supported features (filtering, pagination, sorting) that set it apart.

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 change requests with filters, but does not explicitly contrast with single-fetch get_change_request or other alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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