release_report

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

The description mentions that setting publish=true commits the report to the state repo, which is a side effect. However, with no annotations provided, the description should also disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only when publish=false. This is not addressed.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the report content and then describe the publish option. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. The structure is efficient for quick parsing.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description adequately covers the report content and optional publishing. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing release state) or error conditions. For a tool with only two parameters, this is nearly complete but lacks some contextual detail.

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 zero descriptions for its parameters, so the description must clarify their meanings. It explains that coordinate is used in the filename 'reports/<coordinate>.md' and that publish controls whether the report is committed to the state repo. This adds value beyond the schema, though a more explicit mapping would be beneficial.

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 that the tool produces a release report in markdown format, listing inputs, per-node tags, pipelines, produced versions, and values from job logs. It also explains the optional publishing behavior, making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like release_start or release_plan.

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 implies usage for generating and optionally publishing release reports, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use this instead of release_status for detailed logs). No exclusion criteria or context is given, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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