get-change-request-proposed-changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'Returns' data, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, optional filtering behavior, or response details.

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?

A single, direct declarative sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key operation and resource are both front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the basic return semantics but omits details about response shape, pagination, or the optional settingId filter. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both changeRequestId and settingId already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond framing the context of Change Request and Settings, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('proposed changes to the Settings included in a Change Request'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get-change-request (returns the change request itself) and update/delete-change-request-proposed-changes (mutations).

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 this tool is used when you want the proposed settings changes for a change request, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate context mainly from the tool name and sibling list.

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