balena_get_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as what happens if the release is not found or whether it returns the full release object. With annotations covering the key traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence with zero waste. The key information (get, one release, by numeric ID) is front-loaded and complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 single-resource getter with one parameter and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found) and return format, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity keeps this gap minor.

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. It does identify the parameter's role ('by numeric ID'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't explain the ID's origin, format constraints beyond the schema, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer that release_id is the balena release numeric identifier.

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 'Get one release by numeric ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (release), and the selection mechanism (numeric ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like balena_list_releases (which lists multiple releases) and balena_query_resource (generic query), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage: use this when you need a single release by its numeric ID, versus balena_list_releases for multiple releases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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