Get a release quality report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. Description adds context that the report contains customer-facing issues from automated checks, and that errors are surfaced verbatim. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states action and resource; second adds usage context and error condition. Front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool is simple (one required param, read-only, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and error handling. It doesn't detail return structure but that is implied. Adequately complete for the complexity.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (release_id) with full schema detail (type, exclusiveMinimum). Description provides no additional parameter-level meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter is simple but still a gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve the Preflight QC quality report for a release', specifying the resource (release) and action (retrieve quality report). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_release or list_releases by focusing on quality report specific to Preflight QC.

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 to use before confirming release into distribution. Mentions the 403 error if add-on is not enabled, which implies when not to use. No direct comparison to alternatives, but context is clear.

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