get_change_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it returns related changes and permission context, and warns that the permission context is heuristic, pointing to another tool for the caveat. This adds valuable context beyond a simple 'get' operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently packs related details and a pointer to another tool. It is concise without being overly terse, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability slightly.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (full detail, related changes, permission context) and drawbacks (heuristic caveat). It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to decide whether to use it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is described adequately as 'Change record ID'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting, meeting the baseline.

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 'Full detail for a single change record' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recent_changes and search_changes. It further differentiates by mentioning related changes and permission context, explicitly pointing to get_permission_context for the heuristic caveat.

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 when to use the tool (when full detail on a single change record is needed) and references get_permission_context for a specific caveat, giving an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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