Get HelmRelease details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance: the three-view behavior, pagination handling, and the note about `chart_source_url` being a normalized grouping key rather than a pullable chart, plus the `resolved_chart` clarification and the advice to confirm via repo cloning. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of edge cases.

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 longer than average (~180 words) but well-structured with a lead sentence, a three-bullet section, and a note. Every sentence adds functional information; there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details, which lets the agent quickly grasp the tool's core. It could be slightly tightened but remains efficient for the complexity involved.

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 8 parameters, 3 views, and pagination, the description covers all usage aspects: parameter-to-view mapping, defaults, pagination, and the subtlety of `chart_source_url` vs `source_url`s. It even provides a verification step via `repo_clone`. With an output schema present (though not shown here), the return value details are not required, and the description fills all necessary gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for parameters: it clarifies that `top` and `examples` apply only to `summary`, `repo` and `value_paths` to `values`, and `limit`/`offset` to `deployments`/`values`. It also explains that `value_paths` paths from `summary` work as-is, including array forms like 'route.hostnames[]'. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Get details for one chart') and the resource (by release id), and explains three distinct views (summary, deployments, values) that give it a precise scope. It references the sibling tool `kubesearch_search_releases` as the source of the id, which differentiates it from search. No ambiguity in what it does.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use each view: 'Start here' for summary, 'use it to find a repo to drill into' for deployments, and 'prefer summary first' for values. It also tells the user to confirm via `repo_clone` when needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool in favor of others (e.g., when to use `kubesearch_grep_values` instead), so it misses a direct exclusion but still offers clear usage context.

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