liara_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. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured output information, more descriptive context is needed to guide the agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('appName' and 'releaseID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters identify a specific release, which is already inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate 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 'Get details of a specific release' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('release'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_list_releases' or 'liara_rollback_release', which also involve releases. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing release), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'liara_list_releases' for listing all releases or 'liara_rollback_release' for modifying releases. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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