release_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces and expands this by asserting 'never pushes, tags, publishes, or creates GitHub Releases,' which adds specific side-effect guarantees beyond the generic annotation. It also clarifies the local scope of the report, providing useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Report local release readiness'), followed by content details, a read-only caveat, and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 enumerates the categories of information reported (release metadata, Trusted Publisher wiring, manual release-prep commands), covers the read-only safety profile, and specifies when to call it. For a parameterless report tool, this provides complete context for selection and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is inherently 100%. The description compensates by outlining the content of the report (metadata, Trusted Publisher wiring, commands), giving the agent meaningful expectations for what the tool returns despite having no parameters to document.

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 identifies the action ('Report'), the subject ('local release readiness'), and specifies the exact content (release metadata, Trusted Publisher wiring, manual release-prep commands). It distinguishes this tool from routine work by noting it's for release preparation, making it distinct from siblings.

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 states 'Call when preparing a release, not during routine work,' providing both a clear when and when-not. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of the full 5 which requires explicit alternatives.

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