audit_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; never mutates the repo,' which is a key safety trait. It also describes the checks performed. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network access, caching, or timeouts, but for a read-only audit tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second lists specific checks and the read-only guarantee. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description provides all necessary context for invocation: what it does, which repository, what it detects, and its mutability constraints. The sibling tool context further clarifies its role. No significant information gaps remain.

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 schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', which already provides clear meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states. Since the schema handles parameter documentation fully, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('local repo') and purpose ('release-readiness'), and enumerates concrete checks (CHANGELOG drift, version-bump, publish-workflow). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools (audit_cd, audit_security, audit_instructions) by its focus on release-readiness.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for auditing release-readiness against a specific quality bar, and lists what it detects. While it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, the scope is defined well enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases based on the sibling tool names.

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