query_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 implies a read-only operation through 'Query' and 'Returns a list', but it does not explicitly disclose that no changes are made, or mention permission requirements, error behavior, or pagination defaults. However, the read-only nature is reasonably clear from the verb.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses two sentences plus a list of useful query examples, with no wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and provides common query examples, while the schema documents all parameters. Although there is no output schema, the statement that it returns a list is sufficient for basic use. It lacks details on response fields, but that is not critical for a query tool.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing additional query examples (owner:self, reviewer:self, is:watched) beyond those in the schema, which enriches the semantics of the query parameter without being redundant.

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 the tool's function: 'Query Gerrit changes using Gerrit's query syntax' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like query_accounts and get_change_details by focusing on changes and returning a list.

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 provides common query examples that imply usage scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_change_details or list_change_files. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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