get_release_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('get'), which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not disclose any error conditions, permission requirements, or what exactly 'details' contains. For a simple read tool this is minimally adequate but not enriching.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded Japanese sentence with no extraneous words. Every element contributes to the tool's core 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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: passing an ID returns the release note's details. It lacks explicit information about response shape or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is mostly complete. It does not discuss permissions or edge cases, but those are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as a UUID release note ID. The description adds only the phrase 'specified ID', which adds negligible meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 ('取得します' – retrieves) with a clear resource ('リリースノートの詳細' – release note details) and a clear selector ('指定したID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_release_notes, create_release_note, and update_release_note.

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 the usage context: when you have a release note ID and need its full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke this tool versus listing or modifying release notes.

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