Get releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that — a Response wrapper containing Release models, and the error semantics (MissingParameterError when project_id is absent, ParameterError on invalid input). It notably signals that project_id is effectively required despite being nullable in the schema. Pagination behavior is still unaddressed.

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 docstring structure (Args/Returns/Raises) is reasonably front-loaded with the purpose first. But the Args section is pure boilerplate ('**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request'), which spends space without conveying 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 20-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most of the calling surface undocumented. Beyond the project_id hint and the return-wrapper note, an agent cannot determine how to filter, sort, or shape results.

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, and the description only addresses project_id (indirectly, via the MissingParameterError note). Filtering and shaping parameters such as tag_name, sort, order_by, simple, include_html_description, and milestones get no explanation anywhere, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 information about releases in a project'), which is clear on its own and implicitly distinguishes project-scoped releases from group-scoped ones. It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like gitlab_get_latest_release, gitlab_get_release_by_tag, or gitlab_get_group_releases.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over gitlab_get_release_by_tag or gitlab_get_latest_release, nor when filtering by tag_name is appropriate. No mention of pagination strategy despite page/per_page/max_pages/total_pages parameters being present.

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