get_change_request_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'detailed information' versus basic data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites for using the tool. Given the context of change management systems where permissions and data sensitivity are important, more contextual information would be valuable for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the parameter 'change_id' has no description in the schema), the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. It mentions 'specific change request' which aligns with the parameter name but provides no additional semantics about what format the ID should be, where to find it, or validation requirements. The baseline is 3 since there's only one parameter, but the description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the tool 'Get detailed information about a specific change request', which clearly indicates a read operation on change requests. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_changeset_details' or 'get_workflow_details', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this specific retrieval operation from others in the same domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_change_requests' and 'get_changeset_details', there's no indication whether this tool is for individual records versus lists, or how it relates to other retrieval operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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