octri_monitoring_releases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return contents (error rate, new issues, regressions per release). It says nothing about default time windows, whether range falls back to a default, permissions, or pagination, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the reported metrics front-loaded and the usage cue second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly sketches the returned metrics, and it identifies the resource. It leaves the range parameter and any default behavior unexplained, which for a two-parameter tool is a noticeable but not severe gap.

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 50%: project_id documents its fallback behavior, but range is a bare enum with no explanation. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., default range or how windows are interpreted), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a concrete resource (releases) and the metrics it reports (error rate, new issues, regressions), so the agent can tell what the tool returns without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like octri_monitoring_summary or octri_monitoring_performance, which is why it isn't a 5.

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 second sentence ('how you tell whether a deploy made things worse') gives a clear use case, which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it names no alternative and gives no exclusions or preconditions, so the agent must infer how it relates to the other monitoring tools.

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