get_change_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns full metadata and lists the categories included, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether any write operations occur (though 'Get' implies read-only), potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description provides moderate transparency but could be richer.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, resource, specificity, and the list of returned metadata. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description must explain the return value. It lists key metadata categories (owner, labels, messages, revisions, reviewers), giving a good sense of what to expect. However, it doesn't mention whether the response is paginated, how options modify the response, or error handling. Given the moderate complexity of the tool, the description is mostly complete but has 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions for both change_id and options. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions 'full metadata' which relates to the options parameter but doesn't explain how options affect the response. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, a 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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific Gerrit change. It specifies the resource ('Gerrit change'), the verb ('Get'), and the scope ('specific'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_changes that search for changes. The mention of specific metadata (owner, labels, messages, revisions, reviewers) further clarifies the tool's intent.

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 is for fetching full details of a single change, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of query_changes when you already have a change_id' or 'not for listing multiple changes.' The usage context is present but not explicit.

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