get_matter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by specifying ordering (oldest first), the effect of include_all (routine bot-bump records), and a concrete rationale for returning all releases. It does not contradict annotations, and provides useful context beyond the safe-read signal.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and each sentence adds value. However, the containerd roll-up rationale is fairly long for a two-parameter read tool, making the description more verbose than necessary, though the detail is meaningful.

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 simple tool shape and absent output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (every release, oldest first), when to use it, and how the include_all flag changes the result. No significant gaps remain for an AI agent to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already says about matter_key (verbatim, case-sensitive, contains '/' and ':') and include_all (routine records, off by default), adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 first sentence clearly states the operation: list every release in which a matter appeared, oldest first. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_releases or get_release by focusing on a single matter across releases.

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 explicitly identifies the questions this tool answers: 'which version fixes this for MY branch' and 'have I already handled this'. It also explains why returning every occurrence matters, which guides when to use this tool, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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