deployado_get_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns build status, commit info, and error details—useful context given no output schema—but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits. A 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and a direct usage scenario following. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming key return fields (build status, commit info, error details). For a simple get-by-ID read operation with full annotation coverage, this is sufficiently complete, though minor details about error detail structure or response format are absent.

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 100%, with both app_id and release_id fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('release'), and enumerates the returned fields (build status, commit info, error details). It distinguishes itself from list_releases by emphasizing a 'specific release', but does not explicitly name alternatives like get_build_logs or release_logs.

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?

Provides one clear use case: checking build success or failure after triggering a deploy. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as deployado_get_build_logs, deployado_release_logs, or deployado_get_deployment.

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