get_release_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only describes the output content and does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. It also lacks information about permissions, rate limits, or potential errors.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and key output elements. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key fields) to improve scannability.

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?

The description mentions the main output categories (health stats, commits, authors) but does not specify the response format, pagination, or any constraints. Given the tool has no output schema and simple parameters (2), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about error conditions or edge cases.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear parameter meanings (version format, full flag purpose). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool 'gets detailed information about a release' and lists specific content types (health stats, commits, authors). It uses a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_releases' which likely provides a summary list without 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. There is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for updating issues), nor any reference to sibling tools or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the description.

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