List change requests

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the ability to filter by status but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, default sorting, rate limits). The description does not contradict the annotations.

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 only two sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and positioning it as the entry point. No redundant fluff.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for a list tool with clear annotations, though it could mention that results are paginated or sorted.

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 provides a full description of the status parameter, including the omitted default behavior. The tool description merely repeats 'Optionally filter by status' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score 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 states the tool lists change requests submitted by end users, with optional filtering by status. It also positions itself as the starting point, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_change_request (single item) and ship_change (mutation).

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 suggests 'Start here to see what people are asking for,' implying it's the entry point. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., get_change_request for a specific request) or provide exclusion criteria.

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