get_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'fred/releases' gives no indication of whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, or what the response format looks like. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 with just 'fred/releases', this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single term doesn't provide meaningful information and fails to structure the description with any useful content that would help an agent understand the 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations. It provides no purpose, no behavioral context, no parameter guidance, and no differentiation from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the description's fundamental deficiencies.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what any parameter means, their relationships, or how they affect the operation. It doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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/releases' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool retrieves, lists, creates, or modifies releases, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_release' or 'get_releases_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or distinctions from related tools like 'get_release' (singular) or 'get_releases_dates', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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