get_release_artifact_summary

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

Description explicitly declares read-only behavior and lists what it does not modify (repository files, git state, release state, configuration). However, it omits details on auth requirements, error handling, or what happens if the version is not found. With no annotations, the description partially but not fully compensates.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy. All information is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 has two parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on parameter usage, return format, and error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (workspaceId, releaseVersion). The agent must infer that releaseVersion is needed from the required field, but no format or constraints are given. WorkspaceId is not mentioned at all.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'sanitized release artifact summary' for a requested version, and specifies it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_release_publication_summary, relying on the name for distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without providing context on preferred use cases or exclusion criteria.

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