Get changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and notes 'Body fields: none', which is minor. It does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the schema's note, nor any rate limits or result ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences: a terse summary, the exact endpoint, and a body-fields note. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. The reference URL is useful but could be considered extra; overall it is appropriately sized.

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 read-only list operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essentials: endpoint, no body, and explicit pagination. However, it does not describe what a 'change' is, what fields are returned, or how to interpret the response, which an agent might need given there is no output schema.

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%: the query parameter is described as 'API query parameters; arrays are comma-joined. Documented names: none. Pagination is explicit using offset and limit; results are not automatically combined.' The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint, but the schema already carries the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get changes' with the API endpoint GET /api/xm/1/changes. It is distinguishable from the sibling xmatters_get_a_change (singular) by the plural 'changes' and the endpoint reference, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 the HTTP method and endpoint, which implies usage context, and the schema notes pagination is explicit with offset/limit. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xmatters_get_a_change or xmatters_get_events, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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