Get changeset detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It states 'Side effects: none beyond database reads' and details failure modes ('returns found=false' and 'ambiguous=true'). It also outlines output fields, ensuring the agent understands the tool's behavior.

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 structured with clear section headers (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence is essential, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, side effects, failure modes, and output overview, leaving no gaps for an agent to make incorrect assumptions.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that changeset_ref accepts 'UUID, full git SHA, or unambiguous SHA prefix' (more specific than schema's 'commit prefix') and that include_narrative 'controls cited prose' (adds nuance beyond schema's description).

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve full stored detail for one changeset', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like explain_change or get_symbol_context, none of which retrieve full changeset details.

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 includes a 'When to use' section that explains the context: call after a search returns a changeset ID or git commit needing closer inspection. This provides clear guidance, though no explicit when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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