get_release

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: changes=[] represents auditable silence rather than a gap, each change includes family/actionability/bucket/applies_if/advisories/verbatim quote, and summaries are derived from the same set. It also discloses error behavior for an invalid version, exceeding what annotations provide.

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?

Though dense, every sentence earns its place: core purpose, edge-case meaning of changes=[], field enumeration, version semantics, and include_raw. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents return values: envelope fields, change fields, summary fields, notes_total, and raw_notes. It also explains error handling and parameter behavior, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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%, but the description enriches every parameter: project slug example, version can be omitted for latest, 'v' prefix tolerance, wrong-tag error behavior, and include_raw returning raw_notes. This goes well beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'One reviewed release' and immediately specifies the return shape: an envelope (summary, source URL, release URL) plus all changes. This clearly identifies the tool as fetching a single release's full detail, distinguishing it from siblings like list_releases, with a specific verb and resource.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: omit version for the latest reviewed release, version accepts with or without a leading 'v', and a wrong tag returns an error listing recent reviewed tags for retry. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use list_releases to see all'), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage, but context is clear.

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