get_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention what happens when the change request is not found, whether authentication is required, or what return format to expect. This leaves the agent with little insight beyond the obvious read intent.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. It contains zero unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the essential purpose.

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 a simple signature (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives the bare minimum—what it does—but lacks any detail about return values, error handling, or behavior in edge cases. For a low-complexity get tool, it is sufficient, but the absence of output schema or additional context leaves gaps.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (spaceId and changeRequestId), covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no further meaning about parameter usage or formatting. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 retrieves details for a single, specific change request. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific change request' make it distinct from sibling tools like list_change_requests, and the word 'specific' signals it operates on one item rather than a collection.

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 implies usage—use this when you need details of a particular change request—but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance on choosing between this and list_change_requests or other related tools.

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