Детектор "реліз відстав від джерела"

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: the tool does not guess source→release mappings and requires explicit pairs. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens for invalid pairs, or whether it depends on local git state, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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. It front-loads the core computation, then provides the critical caveat and an example. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential inputs, the core computation, and a key limitation. It could be more complete by describing the output format or edge cases, but the description is strong enough for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the pair semantics and providing a concrete example of the expected pair structure, which helps the agent construct valid input.

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 specific operation: counting commits in a source repo since the last release tag and measuring the age of the oldest such commit. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which concern sweep status, docs, and doc writing.

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 gives clear usage context: the tool works on explicit source→release pairs and explicitly warns that the relationship is not auto-detected from folder structure. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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