Get a release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral content by naming the returned fields (body, target_commitish, asset_count, asset_names) and explaining that the release id is unavailable until after creation. It does not say what happens when no release exists for the tag, which is the key edge case for the idempotency workflow it recommends.

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 tight sentences: identity and key first, return payload second, workflow rationale last. No repetition of the title or schema, and no filler.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and delegating asset detail to a sibling. The remaining gap is error semantics — a missing tag is exactly what the recommended pre-create check will hit, and the description never says so.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious fact that identification is by git tag rather than release id — the id only exists post-creation. That clarifies why all three identifiers are required for a single-record fetch.

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 and resource plus the exact lookup key: "Get one release by its git tag (owner/repo/tag)." It also enumerates what comes back, which cleanly separates it from list_releases (enumerate) and list_release_assets (per-asset detail).

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?

Gives an explicit usage pattern — call before create_release so a release script is idempotent — and routes asset-level needs to list_release_assets. It stops short of stating the converse (use list_releases to enumerate, or edit_release when you already have the id), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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