Get a ChangeSet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It also adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: accepted_commit is pinned at acceptance and never changed, and integration_commit is set by record_commit. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 information-dense and well-structured: operation and target first, then what can be checked, then read-only status, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler or redundant restating of the title appears.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns conceptually (status, fingerprint, provenance) and how to obtain an id. The absence of an output schema does not create a material gap because the description names the fields the agent should expect.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description of id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter context by explaining how to find an id: status lists qualifying ChangeSets and query_work shows each intent's latest one. This exceeds the schema's minimal id description.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read one ChangeSet by id', and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by stating what it is not for: 'Use get_intent for the work item itself.' An agent can tell this tool apart from get_intent, status, and query_work without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: to check ChangeSet status, fingerprint, and commit provenance. It also names alternatives and when they apply, including get_intent for the work item, status for finding PROVISIONAL/VALIDATED/ACCEPTED ids, and query_work for each intent's latest ChangeSet.

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