get_release

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: explains the meaning of an empty facts array with full_reviewed coverage as auditable silence, and conditional automatic inclusion of raw_notes. This provides critical context for interpreting results.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, though minor restructuring could improve readability. It remains concise without unnecessary words.

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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return structure (envelope with specific fields) and edge cases (empty facts, automatic raw_notes). No critical information is missing for correct tool invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains that omitting version fetches the latest release, and that setting include_raw may override normal behavior due to automatic inclusion. This aids correct parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single reviewed release with its envelope (coverage, assessment, source URL) and all facts. It distinguishes from the sibling 'check_stack' by focusing on a specific release rather than a stack.

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 guidance: omit version for latest reviewed release, use include_raw to get original notes, and notes automatic inclusion of raw_notes when coverage is insufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'check_stack'.

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