get-change-request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'returns details,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly disclose side-effect safety, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what exactly is included in 'details.' This is thinner than expected for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail, which is appropriate for a tool with only one required parameter.

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 low complexity and the single parameter is fully documented, so it is callable as-is with a changeRequestId. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'details,' leaving an agent uncertain whether the response includes the main object, comments, proposed changes, approvals, or status. This is adequate for invocation but not fully self-contained.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, changeRequestId, as 'The identifier of the Change Request.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the details of a specific Change Request.' It clearly indicates a singular read-by-ID operation, and the required changeRequestId reinforces this. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list-change-requests or get-change-request-proposed-changes, but the intent is clear.

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 the tool should be used when a specific Change Request identifier is known, especially since the schema requires changeRequestId. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list-change-requests or the related proposed-changes or comment endpoints. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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