Get Workspace changeset

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'No run starts and nothing changes' largely restates structured data. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral context the annotations do not carry: a hard cap of 500 changed paths, the fact that conflicting paths only appear once compared is true, and state-dependent fields (comparison_current_revision vs result_revision) that depend on the changeset's lifecycle stage.

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?

It is two sentences, front-loaded with the core 'get one changeset' purpose before the field inventory. The middle clause is dense but each element (path cap, conflict timing, revision fields) maps to a distinct part of the return value; the trailing read_workspace_file pointer is slightly tangential but useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to enumerate return fields, yet it usefully explains the state-dependent ones. Combined with the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing guidance.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (including the changeset_id provenance from submit_workspace_changeset or list_workspace_changesets). The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail for the two IDs, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get one changeset') and enumerates what the result contains (state, phase, changed paths, conflicting paths, revisions), which is far beyond a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from list_workspace_changesets via 'one changeset', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through field-level routing: comparison_current_revision is flagged as the input for accept_workspace_changeset and result_revision appears after an accepted changeset, and read_workspace_file is named as the way to read a worker's file version. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus list_workspace_changesets, nor any exclusion or precondition guidance.

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