Get a changeset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructiveHint, idempotent, openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral traits: ordering (oldest first), and specific error return for empty changesets, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first defines output, second gives use case, third details edge case. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary 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?

Tool has one required parameter, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. Description completes the picture with output ordering, use case, and error behavior. No gaps remain.

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 for changeset_id is 100% with a detailed description including examples. Description does not add further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it returns all events for a given changeset, ordered oldest first, and explains the use case (reconstructing full scope of a feature/task). Tool name changeset is specific and distinct from siblings like history and log_change.

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?

Description gives explicit when-to-use: 'reconstruct the full scope of a feature or task across multiple entities.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and aligns with the sibling tool list.

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