release_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'read-only' and enumerates actions it does not perform (push, tag, publish, create releases), giving the agent a complete understanding of its non-destructive nature.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states what the tool does, the second clarifies what it does not do. There is zero wasted text, and the critical information is front-loaded. Ideal structure for rapid parsing.

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 has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the report contains or how it is returned. It only says 'run a release preflight report' without detailing output format or content. While the tool is simple, a bit more detail on the report structure would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the guidelines, the baseline score is 4. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none to describe. This is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'release preflight report'. It also states it is 'read-only' and 'for local release preparation', which distinguishes it from tools that push or publish. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 it is for 'local release preparation' and lists what it does not do (push, tag, publish, create releases). While it implies usage context, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. A sibling like 'bundle_export' might also be relevant, but no mention.

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