Get current OtaKit release state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it returns null instead of falling back to another lane, which tells the agent not to expect a substitute release. It stops short of describing auth needs or the success payload.

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 filler, and the core scope constraint is front-loaded before the null-behavior caveat. Every clause carries 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 read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior (exact-lane resolution, null on miss, no fallback). It could say a bit more about the shape of a successful release object, but that gap is minor.

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 appId, channel, and runtimeVersion are already documented in the schema (including the null-means-base/default semantics). The description only restates the tuple as a 'lane', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (resolve) and resource (current release) scoped to exactly one (app, channel, runtimeVersion) lane, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_releases and get_release_health. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 lane-scoping phrase implies when this tool applies (single-lane exact lookup), but the description never names an alternative or states when-not to use it versus list_releases or get_release_health. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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