release_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains local vs remote behavior (local guarded commands, remote read-only) and explicitly lists actions it does not perform. Missing details on side effects or state changes, but adequate for a check tool.

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?

Three sentences: version, main action with behavior split, and explicit non-actions. Front-loaded with key info, no redundant 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?

Adequately explains purpose and constraints for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema. However, does not describe return value or how results are communicated, and lacks differentiation from sibling check_release_gate.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like target_stage enum values work or how they relate to the release gate.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a bounded release readiness check, specifying it wraps existing release gate, and explicitly lists what it does not do (publish, push, tag, create GitHub Release). This differentiates it from siblings like release_verify and release_prepare.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_release_gate or release_verify. While it describes what it does, no guidance on selection or exclusion criteria beyond the listed non-actions.

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