BugSnag: Get Release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by describing the output contents (stability metrics, project targets) and notes that projectId can set the current project for BugSnag tools, which is useful behavioral context.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat redundant, repeating the JSON output description in both the Output Description and Expected Output, but the overall organization helps an agent parse the information efficiently.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the output contains, gives concrete use cases, provides an example, and tells the agent where to find release IDs. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the tool description are near-verbatim copies of the schema descriptions. The example and hint add usability value, but the description does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get more details for a specific release by its ID," and names what is included (source control information, associated builds). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bugsnag_list_releases and bugsnag_get_build.

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 use cases and explicitly hints that "Release IDs can be found using the List releases tool," which gives clear routing context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the ID-based scope and sibling naming make the intended usage clear.

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