prepare_release_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool assembles an archive but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the project, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a tool that likely creates archives with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it 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 mentions assembling an archive but doesn't explain the parameters 'project_path' (e.g., what format or constraints) or 'output' (e.g., optional path or default behavior). This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Собрать архив проекта для публикации' (Assemble project archive for publication) clearly states the action (assemble) and resource (project archive), but it's vague about specifics like archive format or content. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_app_structure' or 'create_theme', which might involve similar packaging operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for preparing a release, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for related tasks like 'analyze_project' or 'validate_ui_usage' that might be used before or after.

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