get_change

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the 'GET' method, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or disclose any behavioral traits beyond what is inferred. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of transparency but only partially meets 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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences: first stating the purpose, second providing parameter usage. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and optional parameter behavior. It could mention error scenarios or return format but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 description adds meaning to the include parameter by specifying allowed values and their purpose ('capture, capture_markdown, or raw_diff evidence'), partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage. However, it provides no additional semantic for the required change_id 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 explicitly states the HTTP method and resource ('GET /v1/changes/:id') and that it retrieves 'Full change detail', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_changes (listing) and update_change (modification).

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 provides guidance on using the include parameter for evidence payloads, but offers no comparison to sibling tools (e.g., get_monitor, list_changes) to help the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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