get_release_sources

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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what kind of data it returns, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is completely silent on all behavioral aspects.

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?

While technically concise (just three words), this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to communicate even basic functionality. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful value.

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 a tool with 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), this description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it relates to sibling tools in the FRED API ecosystem.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'release_id', 'realtime_start', or 'realtime_end' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the operation. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented beyond their names in the schema.

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/sources' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'fetch') or clarify what 'sources' means in this context. Compared to siblings like 'get_release', 'get_release_dates', and 'get_release_tags', this provides no differentiation or meaningful purpose statement.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_source', 'get_sources', or 'get_source_releases', nor does it indicate any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation.

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