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 behavioral burden. It omits what happens if the tag does not exist, whether the read requires specific project access, and what the response contains — notable gaps for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple two-parameter getter. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable. It lacks any statement about return contents or error behavior, and with no output schema and no annotations that information is not available anywhere else.

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%, so both tag_name and project_id are already documented in the schema, including the ID-or-namespace-path format. The description's 'by tag name' merely restates the schema's own framing and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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'), resource ('release details'), and lookup key ('by tag name'), which separates it from list_releases and create_release. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'By tag name' implies usage as a single-release lookup rather than a listing, so the intended context is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of list_releases as the alternative for enumerating releases, and no prerequisites (e.g. read permissions).

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