Get Change Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds context that the response includes implementation, backout, and test plans, which is useful beyond the annotations but does not disclose other potential behaviors like error handling or output size.

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 well-structured with an Args section and Returns section, and the main prose is concise. However, the Args list largely duplicates the input schema, adding a small amount of redundancy.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (complete change request including planning fields). It lacks mention of error scenarios or rate limits, but these are not critical for a basic get operation.

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 both identifier and response_format are fully documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the identifier meaning without adding new semantics, providing no extra value beyond the schema.

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 'Get full details of a ServiceNow change request by number (CHG...) or sys_id', specifying the exact resource (change request), the verb (get), and the scope (full details including specific plan fields). This distinguishes it from generic get_record and list_changes sibling tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need full details of a single change request, identified by number or sys_id. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the specific scope makes the usage obvious next to siblings like list_changes or get_record.

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