github_release_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists return fields (tag name, title, date, release notes) implying read-only access. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free operation, error conditions, or rate limit considerations, which are important for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: verb+resource in first, return fields in second, use case in third. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (tag name, title, date, release notes). It covers the main aspects of a single-release lookup. Minor omissions: no mention of errors, status codes, or that the 'package' parameter is optional. Overall, reasonably complete for a simple info tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates version format support already present in the schema (e.g., 'v1.0.0, @1.0.0, 1.0.0'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific GitHub release version.' It includes the verb 'get' and the resource 'release version', and differentiates from siblings like github_releases_list (list all) and github_releases_compare (compare) by emphasizing 'specific'.

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 description provides a use case ('Perfect for understanding what changed...'), but does not explicitly advise when not to use this tool or name alternatives. An agent would benefit from knowing to use github_releases_list for browsing or github_releases_compare for diffs.

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