BugSnag: Get Release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the behavioral profile. The description adds value by detailing the output (stability metrics, builds) and providing examples, which enhances transparency. No contradictions exist; the description aligns with annotations and adds 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 sections (Toolset, Parameters, Output, Use Cases, Examples, Hints) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but includes some repetition (parameter descriptions duplicated from schema). Could be slightly trimmed, but overall it is clear and organized.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates with an output description and an example, which convey the structure and content of the response. It also provides use cases and a hint for obtaining the required releaseId. For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the same parameter descriptions verbatim, offering no additional meaning. The example shows parameter usage but doesn't add semantic insight beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get more details for a specific release by its ID', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (release details). It lists included information (source control, builds) and provides use cases, making the purpose unmistakable. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the focus on a single release by ID differentiates it from list tools.

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 hint on how to find release IDs (using List releases tool) and lists use cases, which implicitly guide when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., bugsnag_list_releases), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but not proactive.

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