build_get_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'continuationToken' in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'changes' specifically refers to (e.g., code changes, status changes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'changes' means in this context, what format results return, or behavioral aspects like pagination. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'buildId' is required. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining relationships between parameters.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('changes associated with a specific build'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'build_get_builds' or 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id', but the specificity of 'changes' provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the build and test domains, there's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar tools like 'build_get_log' or 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id'.

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