list_change_requests

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List change requests' with no mention of read-only status, return format, pagination behavior, or any other side effects or constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple list tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidance leaves gaps, especially because there is no output schema to clarify the return value.

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 describes all three parameters (spaceId, page, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('change requests') scoped to a GitBook space. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_spaces and list_pages by naming the exact entity, and from get_change_request by being the plural/list form.

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 the tool is for enumerating change requests in a space, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_change_request or merge_change_request. There is also no guidance on using the page and limit parameters for pagination.

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