get_release

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. However, 'fred/release' offers no information about the tool's behavior—it doesn't indicate if it's a read or write operation, what data it returns, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters and an output schema.

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 extremely concise with just 'fred/release', which is appropriately sized for its minimal content. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification. Every part of the description serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficient for tool understanding.

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 complexity of a tool with 3 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide any context about the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (release_id, realtime_start, realtime_end) are documented in the schema. The description 'fred/release' adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their formats, or how they affect the tool's operation. For a tool with multiple parameters, this lack of semantic information is a significant 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?

The description 'fred/release' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_release' without adding meaningful purpose. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, fetch, or get details about a release) or what resource is involved beyond the vague term 'release'. While it hints at the FRED domain, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_releases' or 'get_release_dates'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools such as 'get_releases' (plural) or 'get_release_series'. There's no explicit or implied usage information, leaving the agent with no direction on tool selection.

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