Preview a release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the non-mutating scoping ('without mutating the repository'), which reinforces but doesn't heavily extend beyond annotations. No info on output format, but output_schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding. Each sentence earns its place: one states the action+non-mutating guarantee, the other gives usage context against the sibling. Front-loaded purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only preview tool with 2 optional params, full schema descriptions, an output schema, and solid annotations, the description is complete. The only slight gap is explaining why visibility values are project-variable, but the description already points to project_workspace for resolution, which is adequate.

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%, so the schema documents both params well. The description adds context: it explains that visibility is project-declared with varying accepted values, and that omitting fragmentIds previews every unreleased fragment. This adds operational meaning beyond raw schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Render') + resource ('selected unreleased fragments') with explicit non-mutating scope. Names the sibling project_changelog_release as the permanent counterpart, distinguishing it well.

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 says 'Use to read a release before project_changelog_release makes it permanent,' naming the alternative and the sequential relationship. This gives clear when-to-use guidance against a specific sibling.

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