List pending tracked changes across the open project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral scope: 'every pending tracked-change suggestion,' 'across all docs,' and the stability of change_id. It also clarifies it does not include comments, which is a behavioral boundary. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 states purpose and key outputs, second explains workflow, third draws boundary with list_comments. Front-loaded with the action, no redundant filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (author, doc path, op kind, position, text, change_id) and the new filter params are implied by the workflow sentence. It covers the tool's role in the change-acceptance process thoroughly given its moderate 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?

Input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow semantics by advising to 'filter the result by author / doc / kind / text' and collect change_id values, linking these filters to downstream accept_changes/reject_changes calls. This adds value beyond schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Enumerates every pending tracked-change suggestion' with a specific verb and resource scope ('across all docs'), and explicitly distinguishes from list_comments by stating 'Tracked changes only — review-panel comments are listed by list_comments.' This makes the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to plan an accept_changes or reject_changes call' and tells the agent to filter and collect change_id values. It also names an alternative (list_comments) for comments, setting a clear when-to-use boundary.

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