fossa_get_release_group_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces read-only. Beyond annotations, it discloses the section mechanics, defaults to 'release' and 'summary', and warns that each section costs one FOSSA request—valuable behavioral insight that helps the agent avoid excessive API usage.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, explicitly states read-only, explains sections in a scannable list, and adds a cost warning—all in under 80 words with no redundant sentences.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity with multiple optional sections, the description covers the section types, defaults, cost behavior, and read-only nature. Since an output schema exists, return formats are already documented, making this description complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'sections' parameter by defining each enum value and the default behavior. The two ID parameters (release_group_id, release_id) are self-explanatory by name, so the description compensates adequately.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one release inside a FOSSA release group' and lists the available rolled-up views. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_list_release_group_releases (which returns multiple releases) and fossa_get_release_group (which fetches the group itself).

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 clear usage context: it is read-only, targets a single release, and includes specific guidance on selecting sections based on need, warning that each section costs an additional request. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the description and tool name.

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