get_release_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lack of authentication and the verb 'View' implies read-only behavior. It also lists the return content, which is useful context. No side effects or error behavior are mentioned, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and a key behavioral note (no authentication), and the second lists the returned data. All information is essential and efficiently front-loaded.

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 simple read tool, the description covers purpose, authentication, and return content. An output schema exists, so return values are already defined. It does not mention failure cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward view operation given the simple parameter and read-only nature.

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?

The only parameter, release_id, is not explicitly described beyond its name. The description implies it identifies the release plan, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's field name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more, yet the parameter is self-explanatory, so a middle score 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 clearly states the verb 'View' and the resource 'an existing release plan', which is distinct from sibling tools like create_release_plan and commit_release. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'View an existing release plan' clearly indicates this is a read operation for inspection, contrasting with creation or modification tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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