get_change_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned scope (related changes, permission context) and notes the heuristic caveat in get_permission_context, but it does not describe operational behavior such as read-only nature, error cases, or return format 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. The parenthetical caveat is dense but earns its place by warning about the heuristic permission context.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and a caveat, but it leaves gaps about how to obtain change_id and how this tool relates to sibling history/snapshot tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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 change_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, source, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clear verb-resource pair: full detail for a single change record. It also enumerates what the detail includes (related changes and permission context), though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling detail/history tools such as get_object_history or get_snapshot_summary.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, nor any when-not conditions. The only sibling reference is a pointer to get_permission_context for a caveat, which is not usage guidance for selecting this tool.

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