list_changesets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns partial/full data, or how results are ordered. For a list operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a changeset is in this context, how results are returned, what filtering options exist, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about any parameters, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no guidance on what 'application', 'developer', 'timeframe', etc. mean.

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 'List changesets from ServiceNow' states the basic action (list) and resource (changesets), but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_change_requests' or 'get_changeset_details'. It doesn't specify whether this lists all changesets, filtered ones, or provides pagination details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_changeset_details' (for specific changesets) and 'list_change_requests' (for related entities), the description offers no context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions.

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