get_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the selection mechanism (by tag or latest published), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior or any additional constraints, relying on the output schema to define returns. This is adequate but not extensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the key selection criteria. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the main decision (tag vs latest). It does not mention potential failure cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity. The required repository parameters are evident from the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only tag_name having a description. The tool description clarifies tag_name's optionality (omit for latest) but completely omits any context for repo_owner and repo_name, which are required. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not address these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 a specific action: fetching one release, either by tag or the latest published. It distinguishes from list_releases by specifying 'one release', implying it is not a listing operation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need a single release by tag or the latest. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it or a comparison to sibling tools like list_releases. It provides enough context for basic selection but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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