getReleaseRisks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tool's behavior, namely that it returns a risk score and aggregates issues, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like how the risk score is computed, pagination, or the exact structure of the output. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate; the description adds moderate context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the types of issues checked. It ends with the alternative routing. Every word is purposeful with no padding; it is efficient and well-structured for agent consumption.

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?

The tool is a read-only risk assessment, and the annotations plus schema cover the safety profile and parameters. The description explains what it does and when to use it. Since an output schema exists, return value details aren't required. The main missing piece is the risk score's calculation semantics, but that doesn't block correct invocation. Given the clarity and routing, it is nearly complete, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the note that versionId comes from listVersions. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters (e.g., no format hints for projectId or versionId beyond schema), but that's acceptable because the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific purpose: assessing readiness risks for a version/milestone, and enumerates concrete issue types it checks (blockers, overdue work, high-priority issues, unassigned tasks) plus a risk score. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getVersionChangelog, which is explicitly named as the alternative for issue breakdowns.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for risk assessment of a known version/milestone) and when not to (use getVersionChangelog for milestone issue breakdown rather than risk triage), naming the specific alternative tool. This is clear routing guidance that prevents mis-selection.

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