Get latest release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond annotations: the return shape (a wrapper containing the original response and a Release model, valuable since there is no output schema) and the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError).

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 prose lead sentence is fine and front-loaded, but the Args/Returns/Raises block is auto-generated Sphinx boilerplate. The '**kwargs: Additional parameters' line is noise at best and misleading at worst, since the schema exposes explicit named properties, not kwargs.

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?

A 20-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain pagination, the meaning of include_html_description/simple, and when project_id is mandatory. It covers the return wrapper and error names, but leaves the parameter surface essentially undocumented.

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% across 20 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does almost nothing. It names only project_id (as an error trigger) and waves at '**kwargs: Additional parameters (e.g., project_id)', which does not explain page, per_page, include_html_description, tag_name, or any of the other 17 options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get the latest release in a project. An agent can distinguish it from get_releases or create_release, but the description never names the close siblings gitlab_get_releases, gitlab_get_release_by_tag, or gitlab_get_latest_release_asset, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 versus gitlab_get_releases (all releases) or gitlab_get_release_by_tag (specific tag). The only conditional information is an error case, not a usage rule.

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