tool_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: 'does not download or install anything' clarifies that assets are referenced, not fetched — a distinction readOnlyHint alone does not convey. Missing auth/rate-limit context keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key exclusion. No filler; 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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is roughly adequate. But with no output schema, the description should say more about what 'notes/assets' returns (format, pagination, whether asset binaries are listed), and it does not clarify the tool_id argument.

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 0% and the single parameter 'tool_id' has no description in the schema. The description never mentions the parameter or explains that it should be a catalogued tool identifier, leaving the agent to infer the argument's meaning from the phrase 'catalogued repository.'

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 (Read) and resource (official GitHub release notes/assets) scoped to a catalogued repository. The pairing of read + release assets plus the source (GitHub) makes the tool's domain identifiable, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from any sibling.

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?

Implies usage through the negative constraint 'Does not download or install anything,' which steers an agent away from fetch/install-style siblings. However, it gives no positive when-to-use trigger and names no alternative tool for related release or asset operations.

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