list_change_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It goes beyond a simple label by defining status codes (A, D, R, W, M) and stating that size and line counts are returned, giving the agent concrete expectations for the response. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or pagination.

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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose, output format, and status code legend without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 listing tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format and status meanings. The schema handles parameter information, and the description explains what the tool returns, making it complete for the given complexity.

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?

Both parameters (change_id and revision_id) have detailed schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, and the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'files modified in a Gerrit change,' and details the return fields (file paths with status, size, line counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_diff and list_change_comments.

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 obtaining an overview of changed files in a Gerrit change, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The purpose is clear, but guidance is only inferred, not explicit.

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