Get Change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing. The one genuinely useful behavioral disclosure is that the data is a snapshot — 'as SystemDox last synced it from GitHub' — which warns about staleness and is not in the annotations. No mention of failure modes (unknown repo/slug) or how large the payload can get.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then the content enumeration, then the actionable directive. The final 'Read-only.' is redundant against readOnlyHint=true, but one redundant clause does not warrant a deduction.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: brief parts, ADR and status, contract files, feature files with scenario form, plan artifacts, release PRs, the raw Change JSON, and the terminal pass/fail line. Combined with the gates in the usage sentence, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 is 100% and both params are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description does add modest value by tying `slug` to the specs/changes/<slug>/ folder convention and framing `repo` as 'a connected repository', but it repeats rather than extends the schema's owner/name and folder-name notes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one change') and pins the resource to a concrete location, 'a specs/changes/<slug>/ folder of a connected repository'. The subsequent enumeration of what the change contains separates it clearly from siblings like get_specs or get_plan_board, which cover broader scopes.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation trigger ('Call it before building a story') plus a hard stopping condition tied to the 'brief is not passed' verdict and unproposed scenarios. It does not name alternative tools or say when NOT to call it relative to get_specs/get_context, which keeps it at 4.

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