find_collection_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read/find operation, but it does not describe what the response looks like, whether a username is required to scope to another user, or whether the result includes folder context. This is too thin for a tool with no safety annotations.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, and the core behavior is immediately clear.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It lacks return-shape information, username semantics, auth expectations, and any mention of pagination or edge cases like releases that appear in multiple folders.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'release' in the description maps to releaseId, but it ignores the optional username parameter entirely and provides no additional meaning about how either parameter behaves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('collection instance of a release') and sharply scopes it to 'across folders.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection, which lists a collection generally, and edit_collection_instance, which modifies a single instance.

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 phrase 'every collection instance ... across folders' implies the use case: when an agent needs all instances of a release regardless of folder. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_collection, and it offers no exclusions or alternative-route guidance.

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