get_release_community_rating

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states it 'Retrieves' data, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose potential return formats, error conditions, or behavior when no ratings exist. It is minimally descriptive.

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 a single sentence of 8 words with no filler. Every word serves a purpose. It is front-loaded and easily parsable.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the response (e.g., average and count fields) or any assumptions. Agents need more context to handle the output correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds no extra meaning to the 'release_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type number, minimum 1). The agent gets no hint about the parameter's purpose or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource 'release community rating' along with the data items 'average and count'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_release_rating_by_user (user-specific) and get_release (full details).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool provides aggregate community ratings, while get_release_rating_by_user provides individual user ratings. Agents lack context for selection.

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