glm_5_review_change_set

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only inspection ('inspect') without side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention permissions/rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context.

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 inspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what and when. It hints at the output ('audit trail') but does not detail return structure, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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 0% and the description adds no details about the 'proposalId' parameter beyond its type (UUID). It does not explain its role or format, so the agent lacks guidance despite a single parameter.

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 'inspect' and the resource 'proposed change set' with 'audit trail', distinguishing it from siblings like 'propose_changes' and 'approve_and_apply_changes'.

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 phrase 'before approval or rollback' explicitly indicates when to use this tool. While no direct exclusion or alternative naming, the context is clear given sibling tools for approval and rollback.

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